update-actor-item

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains that patch applies values as-is, arrays replace whole, deletePaths uses '-=' deletion form, and notes it's a low-level editor. Lacks details on error handling or authorization, but the core behavioral traits are well disclosed.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with domain tag and core action. Each sentence is informative and necessary. No redundant or vague phrasing.

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 complexity (7 params, nested objects) and no output schema, the description covers essential aspects: usage patterns, parameter behavior, and tool alternatives. One minor gap is the lack of description for return values, but overall it is well-rounded.

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 100%, baseline 3. The description adds significant value: explains dot-path patch with concrete examples, clarifies deletePaths conversion, and specifies search order for identifiers (id, exact name, substring). This goes far beyond the schema 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 it edits an item embedded on an actor, listing specific item types (weapon/feature/spell/equipment) and operations (patch, deletePaths, name/img). It distinguishes from sibling tools like manage-activity and get-actor-entity, making the tool's role unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly states when to use alternatives: 'to add/edit/remove activities…prefer manage-activity' and 'use get-actor or get-actor-entity to find the item and exact paths/ids'. This gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate versus its siblings.

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