production.character_create_candidate

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

The description usefully discloses side effects the annotations do not: the asset guard, an implied checkpoint before copying, and a before/after dependency manifest. However, 'an existing candidate of the same source state is reused' describes call-level dedupe, i.e. repeated calls with the same arguments have no additional effect, which conflicts with idempotentHint=false. An agent deciding whether retries are safe would get opposite signals from the description and the annotations.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the resource and source restriction, and every clause carries information. It is terse to the point of jargon ('asset guard', bare 'MASTER refused'), which costs a little readability but not much length.

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, and annotations cover the read/destructive profile. Still, for a mutation with three undocumented parameters, the description should unpack object_name and operation_id and state what happens when the guard fails; instead it assumes familiarity with the asset/checkpoint workflow.

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, operation_id, and source_fingerprint are all undocumented. The description indirectly explains source_fingerprint as the identifier of the source state used for reuse, but says nothing about what object_name selects or what operation_id is for, leaving two of three parameters with no semantics anywhere.

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: creates a candidate mesh (object + mesh copy) from a WORKING_COPY/FIXTURE/TEMPORARY source, with a dependency manifest. The source-state restriction and 'MASTER refused' clause separate it from the many other *_create_candidate siblings. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so sibling differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Gives a clear precondition (source must be WORKING_COPY/FIXTURE/TEMPORARY) and an explicit exclusion (MASTER refused), plus a reuse rule for an existing candidate of the same source state. It does not route the agent to an alternative when the precondition fails, so it is context-rich but not a full when/when-not/alternative statement.

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