production.character_compare_before_after

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

Annotations declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, so the agent knows writing occurs. The description adds real context beyond that: cameras and look are shared across both states so the comparison is fair, and silhouette deltas are produced per view. It omits render cost, where artifacts land, and what happens if views is omitted.

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 tight sentences with the substantive detail front-loaded and no filler. Brevity here is efficient rather than padded, though it leans terse for a seven-parameter tool.

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 needn't be spelled out. But with seven parameters at 0% schema coverage and no title, the description leaves the two required object arguments and the manifest/operation_id mechanics entirely unexplained for what is a multi-render comparison operation.

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 carry parameter meaning, which it largely does not. 'per view' hints at the views parameter, but before_object, after_object, manifest, and operation_id are never explained (are objects names, IDs, or file paths?).

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 action: produce before/after renders with shared cameras and look, plus per-view silhouette deltas. That distinguishes it from pure analysis siblings, though it never names the character scope or explicitly contrasts with qa_compare_before_after or deformation_compare.

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?

'Visual review stays required' is the only usage signal, warning that output is not a final verdict. There is no indication of when to reach for this versus the many other compare/diff tools (qa_compare_before_after, material_compare_before_after, diff_scene), nor any prerequisite about the two objects being prepared.

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