remove_actor_from_data_layer_instance

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

Beyond annotations (destructive=true, idempotent=true), the description discloses non-obvious behavior: no editor-world swap on non-WP maps, an 'honest error' rather than a silent fallback, and the exact idempotency semantics (removed=false means the actor simply wasn't in the layer, not a failure). This is meaningful context an agent cannot derive from the hints alone.

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 action, followed by inverse-tool pointer, precondition, and idempotency note in tight succession. Dense with implementation references (UDataLayerEditorSubsystem) but every sentence carries actionable information; minor verbosity only.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description embeds a full Returns block enumerating every field, and covers preconditions, error behavior, and idempotency. An agent has everything needed to invoke 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 both parameters are already documented. The description adds only marginal meaning ('the instance referencing the given asset must exist in the world'), which clarifies how data_layer_asset_path resolves but doesn't add syntax or format detail. 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Removes an editor-world actor from a data layer instance') and explicitly names its inverse sibling assign_actor_to_data_layer_instance, so an agent can distinguish it from related data-layer tools 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?

Names the inverse operation and states the governing precondition: requires a World Partition world, and on a non-WP/default map it returns an error. This tells the agent when the tool will and won't work, though it does not spell out an explicit 'use X instead' route for the non-WP case.

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