remove_trigger_sphere

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real context beyond that: the level is not saved, and a missing or wrong-class actor is not an error but yields deleted=false plus a note. That non-obvious success/failure semantics is genuinely useful for an agent deciding how to interpret a result.

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 first two sentences are dense and well front-loaded, but the closing 'Returns: { actor_name, actor_class, deleted, already_existed, note? }' restates the four fields already enumerated in the preceding sentence, which is pure duplication in a very short description.

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 usefully enumerates the return fields and their meaning, and it discloses the destructive, non-saving behavior. It could still say more about what happens to the actor's components/references or whether the deletion takes effect immediately, but for a one-parameter destructive tool it is largely sufficient.

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 actor_name parameter is already documented in the schema, including the editor-label caveat and the failure-without-it behavior. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 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?

The description names a specific verb+resource ('Delete a TriggerSphere actor from the editor world') and adds a distinguishing behavioral detail ('after checking its class'). It does not explicitly contrast with the near-identical sibling remove_trigger_box, so differentiation relies on the actor-type noun alone.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to reach for this tool versus remove_trigger_box or delete_actor, and no prerequisites (e.g. whether the actor must be selected or referenced by name first). The only guidance offered is about error semantics for a missing/wrong-class actor, which is behavioral rather than selection guidance.

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