delete_actor

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the deletion action but does not mention potential side effects (e.g., whether deletion is permanent, unwinds, or affects attached components), nor does it warn about destructive consequences. The only added context is clarifying the meaning of 'label,' which is useful but insufficient for a destructive operation.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the key action and immediately clarifies the parameter. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks key safety context for a destructive operation. It does not explain what happens if the label does not exist, whether the action is reversible, or any prerequisites (e.g., listing actors first). With sibling tools like list_actors available, a mention of how to discover valid labels would improve completeness.

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 provides no description for the 'label' parameter (0% coverage), but the description compensates by explaining that the label is the editor label (World Outliner name). This adds meaningful context to the single parameter, though it does not specify format, uniqueness, or case sensitivity. Given the minimal schema, this is strong compensation.

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 the actor') and identifies the target resource by its editor label (World Outliner name). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_actors, spawn_actor, or duplicate_actor, which have different purposes.

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 implies the tool is used to delete an actor identified by label, which is a clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions (e.g., 'cannot delete actors with children'). The usage guidance is implied rather than explicitly stated.

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