Schedule Luau source on an Actor's isolated state

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: asynchronous execution that returns scheduling metadata rather than the script's return value, the confirm=true gate, phase/cost/idempotency metadata, produced operation-receipt, and a safety note that it runs caller-selected behavior in the live client. Annotations cover the destructive/idempotent profile, and the description enriches it.

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?

Front-loaded with the critical 'WRITES LIVE GAME STATE' warning, then tightly structured metadata blocks. Some redundancy (MUTATING repeats destructiveHint) but the density is justified for a high-risk mutation tool.

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 no output schema, the description correctly explains that the return is scheduling metadata, not the script result. Prerequisites, verification path, and failure guidance are all present, so nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents every parameter; the description's signature largely restates it. It adds minor value by noting the actor path is resolved in the active client and that arguments are forwarded. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource: resolve an Actor expression and call run_on_actor(actor, source, ...arguments), scoped to an Actor's isolated state. This clearly separates it from sibling executors like run-luau, execute, and execute-lua-state.

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?

Supplies strong context: requires active-client, resolved-target, explicit-mutation-approval and confirm=true, and points to get-lua-state for verification. It does not explicitly say when to prefer a sibling executors (e.g. run-luau for non-Actor code), so the when-not is left implicit.

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