update_actor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not explain whether updates are merged or replace the entire actor, what happens if the actorId does not exist, or whether permissions are required. The list of fields gives some transparency but omits critical side effects.

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 ('Update an actor's properties') before listing fields. While the list is long, it is purposeful and not padded with fluff. The structure is clear, though the enumeration could arguably be moved to the schema for brevity.

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 tool's moderate complexity (nested updates object, no output schema), the description leaves significant gaps. It does not explain the update semantics (partial vs. full replacement), return behavior, or error conditions. The list of fields is helpful, but the lack of behavioral context makes the description incomplete for safe and correct invocation.

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 schema only defines actorId and updates as a generic object, providing 100% coverage at a superficial level. The description adds essential semantics by enumerating the specific properties that can be updated (name, class_id, parameters, etc.), which goes beyond the schema and is critically useful. However, it does not explain the structure of nested fields like 'parameters' or acceptable value types.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Update an actor's properties' with a specific list of XP fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_actor or create_actor. The verb 'Update' is explicit and the resource is specific.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It simply states the action, leaving the agent to infer that it is used for modifying existing actors. Sibling tools like create_actor or search_actors are not referenced.

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