interchange_reset_actors

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: silently skipped actors and the warning that 'the reply does not say which were reset,' which tells the agent the resolved count alone is not sufficient verification. It does not say whether resets are undoable or restore prior state, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 mutation and its scope are front-loaded in the first clause, and the caveats about skipped actors follow logically. The explicit 'Returns:' line is slight redundancy with the earlier mention of count/resolved/unresolved_paths, but it is justified because no output schema exists.

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 supplies the return shape it would otherwise need, plus the two behavioral facts an agent must know to interpret the result (silent skips, no per-actor reset report) and the required precondition check. Nothing needed to invoke or evaluate the call 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 schema description already explains the accepted identifier forms, that labels are not matched, and that unknown entries land in unresolved_paths. The description's 'listed by object path or persistent-level object name' largely restates that, adding no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so per the baseline this is a 3.

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+resource ('Run an Interchange reset ... on the editor-world actors') and scopes the input domain to editor-world actors resolvable by object path or persistent-level name. The underlying API is even named (UInterchangeEditorScriptLibrary::ResetActors), so an agent can distinguish it from the sibling reset tools (interchange_reset_level_asset, interchange_reset_scene_import_asset) without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Check first with interchange_can_reset_actor,' naming the alternative and the condition that makes it necessary. It also explains why the check matters (the library silently skips actors that fail CanResetActor), so the guidance is actionable rather than boilerplate.

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