apply_usage_preset

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that reduction may fail when its deviation limit cannot be met and that existing imported geometry stays usable, which covers failure mode and preservation. However, it omits whether the operation is destructive to the retained source, what permissions are required, or whether the change is reversible.

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 three concise sentences, front-loads the core action, and each sentence adds relevant information about purpose, preset use, and failure behavior. There is little wasted wording, though the second sentence is slightly redundant with the first.

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?

For a no-annotation, no-output-schema tool with low parameter coverage, the description covers purpose and failure behavior but leaves gaps in usage guidance and asset_id semantics. It is minimally adequate but an agent would still need to guess about routing and parameter meaning.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the preset parameter by naming three preset values and describing what the preset controls (triangle budget, texture resolution, LOD ratios). It says nothing about asset_id, leaving one of two parameters undocumented.

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 states a specific verb ('Prepare') and resource ('retained source') and names the target preset categories (mobile_prop, scene_prop, hero_prop) with LOD preparation. It is clear enough to distinguish from generic asset tools, but it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling prepare_asset tool.

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?

The description gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and does not name alternatives or prerequisites. An agent must infer that this tool applies only to retained sources with existing imported geometry, but the routing against siblings like prepare_asset is left ambiguous.

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