actor_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals wildcard support but omits crucial details for a destructive operation: whether deletion is permanent, whether it can delete multiple actors, or whether it is reversible. This gap is significant for a delete 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 sentence that front-loads the action and includes essential wildcard behavior. It is concise with no unnecessary words.

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 it is a destructive tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about consequences, such as irreversibility or bulk deletion. The current description is too thin for an operation that removes actors.

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 already describes the actor_name parameter with the exact same wildcard semantics, so the description adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 applies due to 100% schema coverage.

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 the specific verb 'Delete' with the resource 'actors' and the method 'by name or name pattern', making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like actor_spawn, actor_duplicate, and actor_modify.

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 implies the use case: deleting actors by name or pattern. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusions or preconditions, so guidance is only implied.

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