create_actor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core creation action and a cells format note, but says nothing about side effects, return values, constraints, or what happens if an actor with the same name already exists. For a mutation tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 very short and front-loaded with the main verb, which is good for conciseness. However, it omits essential information for a tool with 10 parameters, making it under-specified rather than appropriately concise. The single-cell format note is useful but does not justify the lack of detail for other important parameters.

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's complexity (10 parameters, no annotations) and the existence of an output schema, the description still leaves major gaps: what an actor is, the coordinate system, the meaning of z/visible/pushable/properties, and how this tool relates to siblings. It is incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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 only elaborates on the 'cells' parameter format, leaving the other 9 parameters unaddressed. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description does not compensate for missing parameter meanings. Even the cells format note is partially redundant with the schema, which already defines the array structure.

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's function with 'Create a generic actor', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_actor or remove_actor by the create verb, but doesn't explicitly differentiate 'generic' from specialized actors, so it loses a point for lack of explicit sibling differentiation.

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 when-to-use guidance or alternative tool mentions. The phrase 'generic actor' implies it is the base creation tool, but the description does not say when not to use it, nor does it mention alternatives like load_static_map or specialized creation tools. Usage context is only implied, not explicit.

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