update_actor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the partial-update behavior ('only the provided') but leaves critical details ambiguous: what happens when fields are null vs omitted, whether missing actor_id causes an error, and what the response contains. This opacity is significant for a mutation tool with 11 parameters.

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, which is acceptable for a simple tool, but it under-specifies a complex tool with 11 parameters. It lacks a summary of return behavior or parameter categories. Every word is used, but significant information is missing, so it does not fully 'earn its place'.

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?

With 11 parameters, no annotations, and zero schema descriptions, the description is insufficient. It should explain partial-update semantics more explicitly, list the field groups, mention error handling for unknown actor_id, and possibly reference the output schema. The output schema exists but is not acknowledged. The tool is moderately complex, and the description leaves too many gaps.

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 for undocumented parameters. It merely groups fields into 'state' and 'transform' without mapping which parameters belong to which category or explaining units/formats (e.g., color integer meaning, rotation degrees, properties map). The schema only lists titles and defaults, leaving meaning unclear.

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 as an update to an actor and specifies that only provided fields are affected. It distinguishes from create_actor by focusing on modification, but the phrase 'generic actor state and transform fields' is somewhat vague and does not explicitly mention 'existing actor' or the actor_id.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_actor or remove_actor. The description implies a partial update but does not state prerequisites (e.g., that the actor must already exist) or contrast with sibling tools. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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