set_actor_lifetime

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

Annotations declare idempotentHint and destructiveHint, and the description corroborates both by explaining that re-running cancels/resets the timer and that the actor gets destroyed. It additionally discloses runtime/packaged-build safety and world resolution, which goes beyond the annotations.

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 idempotency, use case, and build-safety in a compact block. Every sentence earns its place; the returns line is somewhat redundant given the schema, but remains tight overall.

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?

Covers mechanism, idempotency, intended use, execution environment, and return shape for a two-param destructive tool. No essential information an agent would need to invoke it correctly is missing, even without an output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters, earning baseline 3. The description adds value by clarifying the 'seconds' semantic as the destruction delay and framing 'actor_name' as a target reference, plus the returned seconds field reinforces the meaning.

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 ('schedules an actor... for automatic destruction after N seconds') and pins down the mechanism (SetTimer) and the target world. It does not name or contrast any sibling, but no sibling tool overlaps this actor-lifetime scheduling function, so the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Gives clear use context ('transient effects (damage numbers, FX) that should auto-cleanup') and an implicit when-to-use via its lifetime-scheduling framing. No explicit when-not or named alternative, but the niche function has no obvious competing tool.

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