editor_actor_details

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safety profile, so the description only needs to add context. It contributes the useful 'live' qualifier (a snapshot of current editor state rather than cached data) and names the data domains returned, but says nothing about failure behavior for an unknown actorId, edit-mode vs play-mode requirements, or read cost.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scope, then a dense enumeration of returned data. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, and no duplication of schema content.

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 an output schema covering return values, a fully documented parameter, and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description only needed to convey scope and data domains, which it does. The remaining gap is that error/precondition behavior is unstated, which is minor for a single-actor read 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single actorId parameter is already documented with its source (editor_scene_graph or editor_get_selection). The description adds no further parameter semantics such as format validation or whether partial GUIDs are accepted, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Returns') and a precisely enumerated payload (identity, hierarchy, activation, layer, tags, transforms, scripts) scoped to 'one actor loaded in the Flax Editor'. The field enumeration implicitly separates it from component-specific siblings like editor_static_model_details and editor_box_collider_details, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'one actor loaded in the Flax Editor' signals it operates on an existing actor, and 'live' signals current editor state. The description never says when to prefer it over editor_static_model_details, editor_box_collider_details, or scene_find_actor, nor any precondition such as needing an ID from editor_scene_graph (that routing lives only in the schema).

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