production.deformation_analyze

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

Annotations already declare idempotent, non-destructive, non-read-only, closed-world. The description's 'bounded ... metrics, no weight edits' usefully explains why an analysis tool is flagged readOnly=false — it evaluates geometry without mutating weights. It adds no further context on what 'evaluated' means or what state is touched.

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?

One compact sentence with the core action front-loaded and no wasted clauses. It is dense jargon ('evaluated geometry', 'reference frame') but efficient.

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 structure needn't be described. However, for a tool with an opaque free-form options bag and multiple look-alike siblings, the description leaves gaps an agent would need to call it correctly.

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% and the optional 'options' parameter is a free-form object with additionalProperties=true. The description never mentions options or what belongs in it, leaving the most open-ended parameter entirely 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('compare evaluated geometry with a reference frame') plus the metric families it yields (edge/area/volume). It stops short of distinguishing itself from the very similar sibling production.deformation_compare, so the agent must infer which of the two to pick.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no named alternative despite several near-siblings (deformation_compare, deformation_test_pose, animation_deformation_qa). 'No weight edits' hints at a boundary but does not route the agent to the correct tool.

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