editor_modify_actor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key trait that this is a full replacement, not a partial update, plus the read-before-write mitigation. It omits other consequential behavior: whether the actor must be in play mode (only hinted by "live"), what happens on an invalid or destroyed actorId, and whether the change is undoable.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The operation and its return are stated first, then the safety instruction, so the most important constraint is front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and all four required nested parameters are covered by the schema. What remains thin is failure and precondition behavior for a mutation tool with no annotations; "live" gestures at a play-mode requirement without confirming it.

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 each of the four parameters already documents its world-space meaning, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description reinforces the replacement (all-or-nothing) semantics but adds no coordinate conventions, units, or quaternion normalization rules beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb ("Replaces") and resource ("an existing live actor's world transform"), so an agent knows this is a full-overwrite transform mutation rather than a rename or reparent. It references editor_actor_details but as a prerequisite, not as a competing sibling, so no alternative-modifier tool is explicitly ruled out.

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?

It gives an explicit prerequisite workflow: read with editor_actor_details first so unchanged transform components can be carried over. That is actionable context rather than inference. It stops short of stating when not to use this tool (e.g. for non-live or non-existent actors) or which sibling handles those cases.

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