groom_character

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only adds the source-version precondition. It does not say whether this is a long-running job (siblings get_job_status/cancel_job hint at async), whether it requires approval gates, whether it overwrites existing grooms, or what permissions are needed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core action and its source constraint come first. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than tightness.

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 mutation tool with 6 parameters, 4 of them required, zero schema coverage, no annotations, and no output-schema documentation needs, the description is far too thin. It should at minimum clarify the approval gate, the job/async nature, and the meaning of the required identifiers.

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% across 6 parameters, and the description only gestures at source_version ('exact source version'). The required project_root, character_id, request_id and the optional style and strand_count receive no explanation in either the schema or the description.

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 (create) and resource (groom), with an added constraint that the source must be an 'appearance-approved exact source version'. This is clearly distinguishable from mesh, rig, and UV siblings, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.

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 phrase 'appearance-approved exact source version' implies a prerequisite, but it is never framed as guidance and there is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_character_mesh or retopologize_character. No exclusions or sequencing are given.

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