modify_actor_properties

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. It only states the action 'modify' and the integration requirement, but does not disclose whether the change is persistent, what happens if the actorPath is invalid, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource, followed by a parenthetical prerequisite. It is concise and efficient, though it omits some potentially useful context that could make it more informative without being verbose.

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 complexity (nested transform object, multiple property types) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is too minimal. It omits return behavior, error handling, and how the integration affects usage, leaving the agent to infer critical context.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already states; it only repeats the general 'modify properties' concept.

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 a specific verb 'Modify' and clearly identifies the resource as 'properties of an existing actor in the level'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'spawn_actor' (creation) and 'modify_blueprint_property' (blueprint-level properties).

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 mentions a prerequisite ('requires Adastrea-Director integration') but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The usage context is implied by the tool's name and purpose, but no exclusions or alternative comparisons are provided.

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