add_actor

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this is a write operation (implied but not explicit), what permissions are needed, how conflicts are handled (e.g., duplicate IDs), or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly scannable and efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

For a mutation tool with 3 required parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks critical context: no behavioral transparency, no error handling, no output expectations, and no differentiation from similar tools. The agent would struggle to use this correctly without guessing.

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 schema fully documents parameters (id, name, project_path). The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond implying they're used to 'add a new actor.' This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding (e.g., explaining ID uniqueness or path format).

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 action ('Add') and resource ('a new actor to the database'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_class' or 'add_item' that follow the same pattern, missing an opportunity to specify this is specifically for RPG Maker actor entities rather than other database entries.

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 like 'update_database' or other 'add_' siblings. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing project), constraints, or typical workflows, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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