destroy_actor

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

With no annotations, the description is expected to disclose behavioral details. It only states the action without mentioning consequences like irreversibility, required permissions, or side effects. The agent lacks critical transparency 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, front-loaded with key action and resource. No fluff or redundant information; every word adds value.

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 output schema exists (not shown) and the tool is simple, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks warnings or success criteria, making it only moderately complete for a destructive 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?

The description adds 'by label or name' to the single parameter 'name', indicating flexibility beyond the schema's strict type. However, it does not clarify whether both forms are acceptable or how they differ, leaving ambiguity.

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 verb 'delete', the resource 'actor from the level', and the method 'by label or name'. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like spawn_actor, get_actor, and list_actors, making the purpose 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., actor must exist), when not to use it, or suggest related tools for inspection or undoing. The user must infer usage from the name.

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