As the author of the selected answer writes, "It's all a matter of context". Since your purpose is technical, there are some conventions you may want to consider. Using common semantic terms can allow interoperability between systems and should be favored over equivalent synonyms when possible.
Schema.org (the most universally recognized source for common semantic terms with established meaning) has two entries that may be relevant.
Agent: "The direct performer or driver of the action (animate or inanimate). e.g. John wrote a book."
Participant: "Other co-agents that participated in the action indirectly. e.g. John wrote a book with Steve."
From your description, it seems like "agent" is more in line with your intent.
One case where "Actor" may still be appropriate is if you're leveraging a UML formalism to convey the information. In UML an "Actor" is an entity that does something in a use case. The caveat to consider with this definition is that a UML actor represents a role played by some person or system external to the modeled business and interacting with the business. So, depending on how you classify your users, this formalism may or may not be appropriate.