batch_delete_actors

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

Annotations declare destructive/non-idempotent, and the description goes well beyond them: all deletions happen in ONE undoable transaction, unresolved names are skipped silently, an all-unresolved call errors with a specific message, and the change stays in memory until save_level writes the .umap. This is exactly the kind of operational context an agent needs before a destructive batch.

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?

Dense but front-loaded with the action and the warning, and every clause carries information (undo semantics, name matching, error case, persistence). Slightly redundant with the schema's name-matching notes, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by specifying the return shape (deleted_count and per-actor JSON captured before deletion) plus the save_level persistence requirement. Nothing an agent needs to invoke or interpret this tool 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% and the single parameter is fully documented (internal names, case-insensitive whole-string, unmatched entries dropped). The description's matching notes largely restate the schema, so it adds little beyond structured data; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Delete several editor-world actors at once') with explicit scope (editor world, internal names only), which cleanly separates it from single-actor delete_actor and other batch tools. An agent knows exactly what operation this performs from the first clause.

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?

Explicit preconditions and alternatives: names must be internal (GetName), editor labels do not resolve, labels should be resolved first with find_actors_by_name, and it is editor-world only. It also tells the caller how to detect partial failure (compare deleted_count against input length).

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