remove-from-actor

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the destructive nature ('Delete'), authorization ('GM-only'), and a behavioral nuance about token IDs affecting the instance's delta. Minor gaps include lack of return value or error handling information.

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?

Two sentences cover purpose, identification methods, and an important additional context (token usage). No extraneous words, front-loaded with the main action.

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 description adequately covers the tool's function, authorization, and identification methods. It does not explain return values (e.g., success/failure), which would be helpful, but overall it is sufficient for a simple deletion tool.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds significant extra meaning: actorIdentifier can be a token ID affecting only that instance, itemIds are 'most reliable' and suggested from get-actor, itemNames are case-insensitive and can be combined with type. This enriches the schema's basic descriptions.

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 ('Delete items'), the target ('already on an actor'), and the identification methods (itemIds and/or itemNames, optionally constrained by type). It also distinguishes from sibling tools that add items or delete other entities.

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 explicitly notes 'GM-only' for authorization and advises using 'get-actor' to find item IDs, providing clear context for when and how to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like 'delete-item' or mention when not to use it.

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