chaos_create_solver_actor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it creates an actor, but does not mention side effects like overwriting existing solvers, whether the operation is destructive, or any permissions required. The presence of an 'overwrite' parameter suggests potential destructive behavior, but the description does not disclose it.

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 short and front-loads the core purpose, but it includes a KB reference and an example that are not structured. It is not overly verbose, but it sacrifices completeness for brevity. The example is useful but does not substitute for parameter documentation.

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?

Given 5 parameters with zero schema descriptions, a creation tool with potential side effects, and an output schema that is not described, the description is inadequate. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or the impact of the overwrite flag. The KB reference might help, but it is not embedded in the description.

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 the description does not compensate. It never explains location, rotation, overwrite, actor_name, or set_as_world_solver beyond a single example that only illustrates two of them. The agent has no way to know the meaning or format of these parameters from the description.

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 clearly states the verb and resource: 'Create a Chaos Solver actor in the active editor world.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like chaos_configure_solver_actor (which configures an existing solver) and chaos_inspect_geometry_collection (inspection). However, it does not explicitly call out the distinction, so it stops short of a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when a Chaos Solver actor is needed, or when one might prefer a configuration tool instead. The KB reference hints at context but is not actionable in the description itself.

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