split_actor

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

Annotations are absent, so the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only mentions the mechanism ('partitioning local topology cells') without addressing effects, reversibility, permissions, or potential side effects, which is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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, focused sentence with no redundancy. It is well-structured and easy to read, though its brevity borders on under-specification. Since conciseness is about absence of waste, it earns a high score.

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 (nested parameter arrays, mutation semantics) and lack of annotations, the description is far from complete. It omits parameter semantics, behavioral effects, and usage context. The existence of an output schema relieves the need to describe returns, but other gaps remain significant.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It hints that 'groups' relate to partitioning cells, but it doesn't explain the nested array structure or what integers represent. The actor_id is obvious from context, but the groups parameter remains poorly understood.

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 identifies the action (split), the target (actor), and the method (partitioning local topology cells). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like merge_actors or update_actor, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool accomplishes.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusion cases. The description only states what it does, not when to prefer it, so the agent receives no decision-making support.

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