create_actor

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

With no annotations, the description discloses several important behaviors: only `name` is required with default values for class, level, equips, and traits; it allocates and returns the next unused actor id; and it includes a detailed caveat about the Hit Rate trait causing missed physical actions. This goes beyond a simple one-liner.

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 three sentences, with the first establishing the core purpose and the second covering required fields, defaults, and return value. The final sentence is a dense but valuable caveat; no filler or repetition is present.

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 15 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a substantial amount of context: required field, defaults, return value, and a critical trait behavior warning. However, it omits details about several parameters (e.g., profile, faceName, characterIndex) and does not describe the response shape beyond the allocated id, leaving some 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 coverage is low (7%), so the description compensates by stating which fields are optional and what defaults apply ('class 1, level 1-99, five empty equip slots, no traits'). It also clarifies the traits behavior with the Hit Rate note, but it does not explain individual parameter formats for many fields, leaving some semantics to inference from names.

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 opens with a clear verb-object pair ('Create a new actor in data/Actors.json'), specifying both the action and the target file. It distinguishes itself from sibling creation tools (create_chest, create_enemy) and update_actor by focusing on the creation of actors.

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 does not explicitly compare this tool to alternatives like update_actor, nor state when not to use it. Usage context is implied by the verb 'Create', but no exclusions or alternative references are provided.

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