control_actor

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context about destructive actions (e.g., delete_by_tag, destroy_actor) or side effects. It even mentions 'enable physics,' which is not an explicit action in the schema, potentially misleading the agent. No contradiction with annotations, but the description fails to disclose the tool's destructive and mutating nature beyond what the annotations already state.

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 a single, concise sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the key actions and is easy to scan. However, it is terse to the point of vagueness, and the phrase 'enable physics' is not reflected in the schema, slightly undermining clarity. Overall, it is appropriately short but could be more precise.

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 the tool's high complexity (19 parameters, 40-action enum, nested objects, no output schema), the description is far too minimal. It does not mention return values, action-parameter dependencies, error cases, or the breadth of operations (e.g., finding, deleting, snapshots). The one-sentence overview is inadequate for an agent to safely and correctly invoke this tool across its many actions.

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 79%, so the schema already documents most parameters. However, the description itself adds no parameter semantics—it does not explain that the 'action' parameter is a switch determining which other parameters apply, nor does it clarify generic object params like 'variables' and 'properties' that lack descriptions. The action enum is described only as 'Action,' providing little guidance for a required parameter with 40 possible values.

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 uses specific verbs and resources: 'Spawn actors, set transforms, enable physics, add components, manage tags, and attach actors.' It clearly indicates this tool operates on actors, distinguishing it from asset or blueprint management tools. However, it omits many actions listed in the schema (e.g., delete, duplicate, find, snapshot) and does not fully differentiate it from other actor-related tools like manage_character or manage_ai.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply lists capabilities without stating when to prefer control_actor over sibling tools, what prerequisites exist, or what actions are excluded. The agent must infer usage from the large action enum and schema.

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