production.character_deformation_qa

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

Annotations declare a non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation, and the description usefully explains why: poses are applied temporarily and then restored, so the scene is mutated but left intact. It also discloses the concrete failure criteria (collapsed/stretched edges, degenerate triangles), which annotations cannot carry.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the workflow phase and the comparison, then the failure condition. No filler, though the parenthetical '(temporary, restored)' is terse enough to risk being misread.

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-value detail is not required, and the pass/fail condition is stated. Still, with 5 undocumented parameters (notably operation_id) and no note on pose format or how many poses are expected, an agent cannot fully prepare a correct call from the description alone.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It clarifies that stress_poses are explicit poses applied to both meshes, but gives no format for them and leaves operation_id and the rig/mesh string references completely unexplained.

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 names a specific verb-plus-resource ('Skiening QA after a shape edit') and states the comparison axis: identical explicit stress poses evaluated on source vs candidate. It is distinguishable from neighbors like deformation_compare or character_compare_before_after, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

'After a shape edit' gives a clear triggering context, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over deformation_compare, animation_deformation_qa, or mesh_candidate_verify. Usage is implied by the workflow phase rather than spelled out.

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