chaos_configure_solver_actor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Configure' implies an in-place mutation, but the description does not state that it modifies an existing actor, whether settings can be safely reapplied, or what side effects the settings have on simulation. The KB reference may help, but the description itself does not disclose these traits.

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 description is concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a KB pointer, and a concrete call example. Every element earns its place and the example is genuinely illustrative. It is not overly verbose, though it could afford more substance without losing conciseness.

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?

This is a complex 14-parameter tool with no annotations and no parameter descriptions. The description does not cover prerequisites, setting semantics, or behavioral context, and the output schema is not described. The KB link is helpful but external; the description itself is not complete enough for an agent to confidently invoke this tool in varied scenarios.

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 0% and there are 14 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only mentions three parameters in the example (actor_name, generate_break_data, optimize_runtime_memory) and provides no meaning for the remaining 11. The property titles are self-explanatory to a degree, but this is insufficient for a parameter-heavy tool.

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 specific action and resource: 'Configure a Chaos Solver actor's core simulation and event settings.' The verb 'configure' clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like chaos_create_solver_actor, and naming the 'Chaos Solver actor' separates it from chaos_configure_geometry_collection and chaos_configure_cloth_component. It doesn't explicitly call out alternatives, but the target resource is specific enough.

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 description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives such as chaos_create_solver_actor or when the solver actor must already exist. The KB pointer and example imply usage context but do not state prerequisites or conditions. This leaves the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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