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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context that this is an added layer with the engine left intact and that it is indicative rather than a visual edit. However, it repeats 'Lecture seule' from the annotations and does not explain return behavior or limitations of 'indicatif' in detail.

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 dense but front-loaded sentence that begins with the usage trigger and then provides the necessary subfield breakdown. It is appropriately sized for a nested one-parameter tool, though the semicolon-heavy structure could be slightly easier to scan.

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?

The input structure and behavioral framing are well covered for a nested object. However, with no output schema, the description does not explain what a successful check returns (verdict, errors, warnings, or revalidation result), which is a meaningful gap for a verification 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 coverage is high, and the schema only documents the outer scene object. The description adds meaningful semantics for the nested structure, including cible/repere, operation types (deplacer/rotation/echelle), and parameters (delta/axe/facteur), which helps an agent populate the scene correctly.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: verifying a declarative parametric edit stored in data. It clearly distinguishes this from a visual edit and explains the scriptable-equivalent nature, though it does not name a specific sibling tool it replaces or complements.

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 opens with an explicit usage trigger: call this when you need to verify a declared parametric edit. It also clarifies that this is an indicative, declarative check rather than a visual edit. It does not state when not to use it or explicitly name an alternative tool.

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