assign_actor_to_data_layer_instance

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already flag this as a non-read-only, non-idempotent, destructive mutation. The description adds value beyond them: the exact subsystem entry point, the World Partition requirement, and that non-WP maps fail with an honest error rather than swapping worlds. It doesn't explain the side effects of reassigning an actor between layers, but coverage is strong.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core action, then constraints, then the return shape. The mention of UDataLayerEditorSubsystem::AddActorToDataLayer is an internal detail that isn't strictly necessary for the agent, but the rest is tight and well-organized.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description explicitly supplies the return object shape, and it covers the hard environmental constraint (WP-only) and error behavior. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description only restates the asset relationship ('the data layer instance referencing the given asset') without adding format or syntactic detail, so the schema carries the weight.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (assigns) and a precise resource pair (editor-world actor -> data layer instance). It names the underlying subsystem call and clearly delineates the operation from sibling tools like remove_actor_from_data_layer_instance.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a clear precondition (must be a World Partition world) and, via the schema, the instancing prerequisite (must first call create_data_layer_instance). It does not explicitly route to a sibling for the inverse case, but context is sufficient for correct invocation.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.