paste_actors

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false; the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: pasted actors end up selected, they live only in memory until save_level writes the .umap, and it is editor-world only. It does not explicitly restate the destructive/non-idempotent nature in words, but the transient-until-save note is a strong behavioral disclosure.

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?

Front-loads the core action and is dense with useful detail, but the 'that is the point of the copy/paste pair' clause is slightly wordy and the return-shape sentence partially restates what the tool returns. Overall efficient and appropriately sized for a one-parameter mutation tool.

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 ({pasted_actors, pasted_count, success}) and the in-memory-until-save lifecycle, covering what an agent needs to call and reason about the result correctly.

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 single parameter is already documented there, including the malformed-array fallback. The description reinforces the relative-offset semantics but adds little the schema does not already contain, 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 ('Drop whatever copy_actors left on the editor clipboard into the current level'), names the underlying editor command, and explicitly distinguishes itself from duplicate_actor and its sibling copy_actors. An agent can tell exactly what this does without opening a 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?

It names the alternative (duplicate_actor) and states the condition that selects this tool ('KEEPING each actor's relative offset -- that is the point of the copy/paste pair versus duplicate_actor'), plus when to omit the location argument (paste where originals were).

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