get_morph_target_deltas

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds valuable context via the explicit return shape, including a truncated flag that explains the honest cap behavior. It doesn't explicitly state the default cap of 5000 in the description text, but the schema covers that.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states what it does and links to its inverse; second provides a compact return structure. No wasted words, front-loaded.

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 tool has a rich input schema with full parameter descriptions and the description supplies the return shape, including truncation behavior. Given annotations already cover safety and idempotency, this is complete for a read tool of this complexity.

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 100%, so parameters like lod_index, max_deltas, and morph_target_name are already well documented with descriptions and defaults. The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides for these parameters.

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 ('Read back the vertex deltas of a morph target on a specific LOD') and explicitly identifies the complementary sibling set_morph_target_deltas. An agent can distinguish it from get_skeletal_mesh_morph_targets or other read tools immediately.

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 names the inverse tool set_morph_target_deltas, implying this is the read counterpart for round-trip workflows. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or suggestion of alternatives like a listing tool, but the context is clear.

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