actor_snap_to_socket

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states the operation ('snap') but does not disclose side effects (e.g., overwrites actor transform), error handling for missing sockets, or any permissions or requirements. The term 'snap' implies a move, but the consequences are unclear.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no extraneous words. Every word carries meaning, and it is structured efficiently.

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 simplicity (3 required params, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is still too sparse. It omits critical operational context such as whether both actors must be present in the level, what happens if the socket name is invalid, and whether the snap preserves orientation. The agent would need to infer or test these behaviors.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for each parameter ('Actor to move', 'Socket name', 'Actor with the socket'). The tool description adds a relational context (which actor moves to which socket) but doesn't add new meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions. Per the rubric, baseline is 3 for full 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 'snap' and identifies the resource ('another actor's named socket'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like actor_spawn, actor_duplicate, and actor_modify. However, 'snap' could be ambiguous (exact transform behavior) and lacks detail about what snapping entails geometrically.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites like needing actors to exist or sockets to be present, nor does it name any alternative tools for similar purposes. The usage context is entirely implied by the name and description.

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