serialize_actor_state

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint and destructiveHint, and the description adds meaningful context: overwriting never duplicates, transform-only default, and the exact return shape. It stops short of describing permission requirements or failure modes, but with the annotation safety profile covered, this is solid.

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 and scoping constraints, and the return shape is tucked at the end. Slightly verbose with capitalized emphasis (EXPLICIT, YOU) and some redundancy, but every sentence carries information.

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 fields, and it covers key ownership, idempotency, and the transform-only default. Complete enough to call correctly, though a note on permissions or slot persistence scope would close the remaining gap.

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 actor_name, stable_key, and property_names in depth (including the GUID rationale). The description reinforces but largely restates the parameter behavior, so the 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 (save an actor's transform plus explicit properties into a SaveGame slot) and differentiates itself from the sibling restore_actor_state by naming the pairing. An agent can identify this as the write half of a save/restore pair without opening either 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 states when properties get captured (only via property_names, otherwise transform-only) and names the companion tool restore_actor_state with the shared key contract. It lacks an explicit 'when-not-to-use' versus closest alternatives like save_game, so it falls just short of a 5.

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