wire_aim_offset

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, and the description restates idempotency while adding the return-field set (useful since there is no output schema). It does not explain the destructive implication — whether an existing asset at the same path is overwritten — which is the one behavioral fact an agent most needs here.

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 short sentences plus a compact Returns block — the purpose is front-loaded and nothing is padded. The return enumeration is arguably redundant with the schema but is defensible given no output schema exists.

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 7-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates return fields and confirms idempotency. It still omits the destructive/overwrite semantics and any routing against the sibling that appears to perform the same creation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents defaults for axis_name, min/max_value, and num_grid_points. The description echoes the axis and range concepts but adds no syntax, constraints, or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a UBlendSpace1D asset') plus the domain scope (aim-offset blending on yaw or pitch). However, the sibling list contains 'scaffold_aim_offset_blend_space', which appears to do the same thing, and the description does nothing to disambiguate the two.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the near-identical 'scaffold_aim_offset_blend_space' or 'create_blend_space' siblings. The agent is left to guess which of several blend-space creators is appropriate.

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