attach_actor

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds one genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the world transform is preserved during re-parenting. However, it does not address the destructive or non-idempotent nature (e.g., re-attaching, replacing an existing parent, or permission requirements).

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?

One front-loaded sentence plus a compact return-shape line, with zero filler. The return line earns its place since no output schema exists. Slightly terse, but efficient.

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?

For a three-parameter attach operation with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description supplies purpose, the socket option, the world-transform guarantee, and the return shape. The relationship to detach_actor remains unstated, which is the main gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters, including socket_name as an optional parent socket. The description's 'optionally at a socket' merely echoes this, adding no syntax or constraint detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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?

The description states a specific verb (attach) and resource (one actor to another), plus modifiers (optionally at a socket, keeping world transform). An agent can immediately tell what the tool does. It does not name the inverse sibling detach_actor, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. The obvious inverse, detach_actor, is never mentioned, nor is any prerequisite or context for choosing a socket. Usage is only implied by the verb.

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