register_smart_object_actor

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

Annotations cover the mutation/safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), but the description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral trait: the subsystem *silently rejects* the handle if no behavior definition exists, flagging the handle_valid field as the tell. This silent-failure disclosure is exactly the kind of behavior annotations cannot express.

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-loaded with the core action, then the critical precondition, then a return-field list. The Returns enumeration is somewhat mechanical but earns its place because no output schema exists. Every sentence carries information; no filler.

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?

For a mutation tool with annotations but no output schema, the description carries the return contract (actor_label, actor_name, registered, handle_valid, etc.) and the key failure precondition. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret 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%, so the schema already documents location, actor_label, and definition_path. The description ties definition_path to the component attachment, adding minor conceptual framing, but supplies no format or syntax detail beyond the schema. 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?

The description states a precise three-step verb+resource chain (spawn actor, attach USmartObjectComponent, register with USmartObjectSubsystem) that is specific and unambiguous. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like create_smart_object_definition (asset creation) and claim_smart_object (runtime use) that share the smart-object domain.

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 'Note' gives a success precondition (the definition must already have a behavior definition), which implies when the tool will and won't work. However, it never explicitly states when to choose this over alternatives such as create_smart_object_definition or claim_smart_object, so usage is only implied rather than directed.

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