production.character_redesign_plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/destructive=false/idempotent, but the description adds real value beyond them: outputs are PROPOSED, numbers are estimates ('starting proposals'), and the call never mutates even in principle. That tells the agent the results are advisory and need downstream validation. Minor deduction because it references an 'apply' flag that does not exist in the input schema, which muddies rather than clarifies behavior.

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 compact clauses, front-loaded with the core verb and non-mutating guarantee; the parenthetical field list is dense but informative. No filler sentences.

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 enumerating return fields is partly redundant, and the description instead omits the information an agent actually lacks: what manifest does and what intent should look like. The proposal/never-mutates contract is stated clearly, so it is adequate but leaves a real gap on inputs.

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 three parameters (intent, manifest, object_name), so the description carries the full burden — yet it barely covers 'intent' and says nothing about what 'manifest' is, its format, or whether it is optional. It also discusses an 'apply' parameter that is absent from the schema, which actively confuses parameter understanding.

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 and output artifact: translate a design intent into PROPOSED topology-preserving operations, with the returned fields enumerated (regions, operation, displacement, risk, dependencies, rationale). An agent can tell this is a planner rather than a mutator. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from adjacent siblings such as character_redesign_session, character_adjust_shape, or retopology_plan.

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?

The phrase 'apply=false: never mutates' implies this is the safe, pre-execution planning step, which gives implicit usage context. But no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or 'use X instead when you actually want to modify geometry' guidance is offered, and with ~100 sibling tools that routing gap matters.

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