production.animation_detect_contact_surface

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds only a faint nuance ('evaluated' mesh, 'explicit local' marker) and says nothing about how evaluation is performed, what is measured, or any limits.

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?

It is a single short fragment with no waste, and the key concept is front-loaded. However, it is a sentence fragment without a verb, which makes it feel under-specified rather than concise.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Still, the tool takes a required object name plus an opaque options bag, and the description explains neither the options contract nor how to interpret 'contact surface' results, leaving the agent short of what is needed to call it correctly.

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%: object_name and the free-form options object (additionalProperties: true, anyOf null) are undocumented. The phrase 'explicit local effector marker' hints that a marker is supplied somewhere, presumably in options, but the description never names or structures either parameter.

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 is a noun phrase, not a sentence with a verb: 'Nearest evaluated static mesh surface at an explicit local effector marker.' It largely restates what the name animation_detect_contact_surface already says, and it never distinguishes itself from close siblings such as animation_analyze_effector_contact, animation_analyze_contacts, or animation_generate_effector_contact.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to any of the many contact/effector analysis siblings. The agent must infer the use case entirely from the tool name.

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