apply_mograph_fields

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create and apply' implies mutation, but it does not mention whether existing fields are replaced, whether the operation can be undone, what prerequisites are needed, or what side effects applying the field may have on the scene.

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 compact and front-loaded with the purpose sentence, followed by a concise parameter list. Each argument line adds some value, though parts of the list largely restate the parameter names already present in the schema.

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 parameter coverage and output schema are enough for basic invocation, and the optional/required split is clear from the schema. However, the description does not explain typical usage contexts, relationship to sibling Mograph tools, or what applying a field does at a scene level, so an agent may still choose or call it incorrectly in ambiguous workflows.

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 does so by enumerating allowed field_type values ('spherical, box, cylindrical, linear, radial, noise') and giving concrete parameter cues ('strength, falloff'). This is considerably more than the schema itself provides, though exact parameter shapes and accepted target formats remain unspecified.

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 and resource: it creates and applies a MoGraph Field. It is not a tautology and the tool name is clearly expanded, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like add_effector or create_mograph_cloner.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_effector or create_mograph_cloner. It only provides a general statement of what it does and does not explain which workflows require it or when it would be inappropriate.

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