production.character_define_regions

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

Goes beyond annotations by disclosing the override rule (user region overrides automatic with same id), the captured attributes (positions, faces, materials, UVs, weights, shape keys), and the 'never edits the mesh' scope limit. This clarifies what the non-read-only mutation actually touches, consistent with destructiveHint=false.

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?

Front-loads the core action and packs structured detail densely with almost no waste. The final 'Never edits the mesh' fragment earns its place as a scope constraint.

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. However, for a 4-parameter tool at 0% schema coverage, the description omits meaning for object_name, operation_id (likely idempotency/correlation), and include_automatic, which relate directly to the automatic-candidate behavior it describes.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It richly documents the contents of the 'regions' parameter (region_id, definition, role enum, tolerance_m, intentional, source, confidence, evidence) but leaves object_name, operation_id, and include_automatic undocumented. Partial compensation.

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 'Store' and resource 'region manifest' and details what the manifest contains (automatic candidates and explicit user regions). It is clear what the tool does but does not differentiate itself from close siblings like mesh_region_define or character_lock_regions.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus mesh_region_define, character_lock_regions, or character_validate_locked_regions. Usage is only implied by the data description; there are no alternatives or exclusions stated.

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