Run a TCAI cycle reading an affect frame, using human valence as the body specialist without routing it to reward signal. Optionally compute a control command.
Read one affect frame and run a TCAI cycle with the human channel entering as the body specialist. The human valence is NOT routed to rewardSignal.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| actuate | No | Also compute a control command (requires an armed controller). | |
| controllability | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses one important behavioral trait: the human valence is NOT routed to rewardSignal. However, it omits other behavioral details such as side effects, state changes, or prerequisites for running the cycle, leaving the agent to infer the full impact.
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 brief and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that state the core action and a key exception. It avoids filler but uses domain jargon without explanation.
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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a non-trivial execution (running a cycle), the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain return values, side effects, or how this tool relates to sibling tools, making it incomplete for safe autonomous use.
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 input schema covers 'actuate' but leaves 'controllability' undescribed, and the tool description doesn't elaborate on either parameter. With only 50% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but doesn't, leaving the agent without semantic clarity on the parameters.
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 reads one affect frame and runs a TCAI cycle, with the human channel as 'body' specialist. It adds a specific behavioral exception (valence not routed to rewardSignal), which differentiates it from generic TCAI/OVO siblings, though it doesn't name alternatives.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like tcai_cycle or ovo_read. The description implies a specific use case (human affect frame processing with a routing exception) but doesn't provide exclusions or alternative recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.