actor_modify

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It adds one useful trait: 'Returns validation results by default.' However, it omits other important details like whether changes are applied before validation, what validation results mean, or if any destructive side effects exist.

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 that front-loads the action and resource, then lists the affected attributes. No wasted words; every segment contributes to understanding.

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 tool has 7 parameters with nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations. The description conveys the core purpose and a validation-default behavior, but it does not explain validation result structure, how fields combine, or prerequisites like actor existence. It is adequate but leaves notable gaps.

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 baseline is 3. The description lists the modifiable properties but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. The mention of 'by default' loosely aligns with the validate parameter, but no extra parameter semantics are provided.

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 ('Change') and clearly identifies the resource ('an actor') plus the exact properties affected: location, rotation, scale, mesh, or visibility. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like actor_spawn or actor_delete.

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 usage for modifying existing actors, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as actor_organize or actor_snap_to_socket. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is given.

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