bind_actor_to_sequence

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=false, readOnly=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the precondition of an existing editor-world actor and a return payload that exposes possessable, saved, and save_error, signaling the operation may persist the sequence and can fail at save time.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler: the action and its precondition are front-loaded, and the return shape is compact and clearly labeled. Every element earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by spelling out the return fields, which is genuinely helpful. Combined with the stated actor precondition and the annotation-provided safety profile, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though it doesn't clarify what 'possessable' vs 'spawnable' means in this context.

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 both parameters (actor_name, sequence_name) are already documented with 'label (or name) of the actor' and 'name of the target Level Sequence'. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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: adding a possessable binding to a Level Sequence, scoped to 'an existing editor-world actor'. This differentiates it implicitly from add_spawnable_to_sequence (which creates actors) and bind_component_to_sequence (which binds components), but it never names those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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?

The phrase 'for an existing editor-world actor' implies a precondition (the actor must already exist), which is useful. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as add_spawnable_to_sequence, so routing between the many bind_* siblings is left to inference.

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