production.character_validate_locked_regions

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive validation operation. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that: it specifies tolerance-based checks and states that topology/membership changes fail and stale indices are never reused.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence beginning with the core action, followed by the specific validation checks. It is dense but efficient, with no obvious filler; the semicolon clause adds useful failure semantics.

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?

The description covers what the validation checks and what causes failure, and an output schema exists for return values. However, it omits the required manifest argument semantics and any usage context relative to locking or other validation tools, leaving the definition only partially complete.

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 should explain the required manifest and optional object_name parameters. It does not mention either parameter, what a manifest should contain, or how object_name scopes validation. This leaves a significant semantic gap for a two-parameter tool.

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 resource: verify locked regions. It also scopes the checks to positions, shape keys, weights, face membership, material assignment, and UVs, so the agent can tell this is a locked-region validation tool. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby validation siblings such as mesh_region_verify or character_deformation_qa.

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 description says what is verified but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It does not tell the agent to use this after character_lock_regions, nor when to prefer or avoid it relative to other validation tools.

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