geom_apply_displacement

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the actor is mutated, that the operation is deterministic given a seed, and that it returns structured JSON with resulting mesh counts. It could add more about reversibility or failure conditions, but the key behavioral traits are present.

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 well structured with a front-loaded summary followed by compact args, returns, a KB pointer, and an example. Each section earns its place, and the parameter list is appropriately detailed given the lack of schema descriptions.

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 moderately complex mutation tool, the description covers target, parameters, return shape, and usage example. It does not explicitly mention prerequisites or when to prefer alternative geometry tools, but the provided information is sufficient for correct invocation in most cases.

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 fully compensate. It does: every parameter is given meaningful semantics, including units for magnitude, the meaning of frequency, the deterministic nature of seed, and the role of along_normal.

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 first sentence names a specific verb ('Apply'), a specific algorithm ('Perlin-noise displacement'), and a specific resource ('DynamicMesh actor'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling geometry tools like geom_extrude and geom_remesh.

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 makes clear the target type (DynamicMesh actor) and the operation context, and provides an illustrative example. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, but the intended usage is clear enough.

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