interchange_can_reset_actor

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive), so the description earns credit for going beyond them: the bound-asset prerequisite and the actor-lookup semantics (full object path or object name in the persistent level, labels not matched). It omits what happens on lookup failure or whether an unbound asset yields false or an error.

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?

The checking semantics and lookup rules are front-loaded in the first sentence where they belong. The trailing 'Returns: { actor_path, can_reset }' block partially repeats the earlier 'returns actor_path and can_reset', which is mild redundancy but structurally harmless.

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 correctly carries the return shape and adds the prerequisite and lookup contract an agent needs to invoke this read-only boolean check. It does not state error/edge behavior when the actor or binding is missing, which is the only real gap for this complexity level.

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% and the actor_path schema already documents both accepted forms plus the 'labels are not matched' caveat with examples. The description restates the same lookup rules rather than adding new meaning, so the baseline of 3 for a fully documented single parameter 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 ('Report ... whether Interchange can reset') on a specific resource ('an actor of the editor world'), and names the underlying API (CanResetActor). The actor scope distinguishes it cleanly from the sibling interchange_can_reset_world, and the 'read-only' framing distinguishes it from the reset_* siblings.

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?

It gives the precondition that matters (needs a bound UInterchangeSceneImportAsset), which tells the agent when the call is meaningful, and the verb 'can' implies a preflight check before a reset. However it never explicitly names interchange_reset_actors as the follow-up or states what to do when no asset is bound, so it stops short of full routing.

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