Manage actors

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

Adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: delete is permanent ('for good'), permission 'full' is required, all targets are checked before the first write, missing targets are named, and system values not stored are listed as mismatches. The description also clarifies merge semantics for update and describes the adapter behavior for create. No contradiction with 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?

The description is front-loaded with a one-sentence overview, then gives one compact sentence per action, followed by a single transaction-check guarantee. For a tool with 11 parameters and 7 distinct actions, this is appropriately sized and every sentence earns its place.

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?

The definition covers all actions, permission requirements, merge/placement behavior, and the result-level mismatch reporting. Although there is no output schema, the description still discloses what the system will report for missing targets and mismatches. Nothing an agent needs to call this tool correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter and their action-specific meanings. The description adds useful cross-cutting context like checking targets before writes and merge behavior, but does not need to, and does not, provide per-parameter semantics beyond what the input schema already offers.

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 starts with a clear verb-and-resource summary ('Create, change, delete and place world actors...') and then enumerates each action with its specific scope: create, update, delete, place, update-items, delete-items, describe. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinguishes it from the many sibling actor-related tools.

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 clear context for every action, including when to use update-items versus delete-items and which actions require 'full' permission. It does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives or state when to prefer actor-set-token or manage-world-items, so it stops short of a 5.

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