update-actor

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'authors the stat block' (implying overwrite) and notes that NPC-only fields produce a warning. However, it lacks information about side effects, authentication requirements, error behavior (e.g., on missing actor), or rate limits. Some transparency is present but insufficient for a mutation tool with no annotations.

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 well-structured with bullet points and groups, front-loading the purpose and exclusions. It is relatively long due to the parameter listing, but each section provides necessary context. The structure is clear, though it could be slightly more concise without losing information.

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 complexity (31 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers most aspects: available parameter groups, NPC-only fields, merge/overwrite behaviors for skills and defenses, and exclusion of embedded items. However, it omits explanation of return values (since no output schema) and does not detail error scenarios, 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 description coverage is 81% (high), so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by grouping parameters into categories (identity, details, vitals, etc.), noting merge behavior for skills (proficiency none/proficient/expert), and indicating NPC-only fields. This semantic grouping aids understanding, warranting a score above baseline.

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 explicitly states the tool edits an existing actor's stat-block fields in D&D 5e, and distinguishes it from siblings by clarifying it does NOT edit embedded items or run combat. The verb 'Edit' and resource 'actor's own stat-block fields' are specific and match the name.

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 clear when-to-use guidance: 'Supply only the groups you want to change' and lists what not to use it for (embedded items, combat) with explicit sibling tool names (update-actor-item, add-feature, manage-activity). It also suggests using list-actors or get-actor to find the actorIdentifier, and notes NPC-only fields are skipped with a warning.

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