merge_actors

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'merge' implying mutation, but does not explain what happens to the merged actors (e.g., are they deleted?), reversibility, permissions, or any side effects. The phrase 'using their rendered world topology' is vague and does not clarify behavioral 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 a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action ('Merge actors') and avoids unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized, though it sacrifices clarity for brevity.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no parameter explanations, and an output schema that is not described, the description is severely incomplete. It does not mention return values, side effects on other actors, or any usage context. This is a very sparse description for the complexity of the operation.

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 schema has one parameter, actor_ids (array of integers), and the description adds no explanation about the parameter. It does not clarify the order of IDs, what 'first ID' refers to (e.g., first in array), or the expected format. With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but fails to do so.

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 ('Merge actors') and identifies the target ('the first ID'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like split_actor. However, the phrase 'using their rendered world topology' adds ambiguity about what topology means and how it affects the merge, so it is not perfectly clear.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like split_actor or update_actor. The description only implies a merge operation but does not state preconditions, scenarios, or when not to use it.

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