production.deformation_test_pose

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (mutation, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world), so the description has a lower bar. It usefully adds that poses are temporary and that a checkpoint should be taken before applying them and restored afterward, but it does not clarify the default proposal/dry-run behavior or permission requirements.

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 very short and front-loads the main concept, with no wasted filler. However, it is written as two terse fragments and a semicolon list, making "Default proposal" ambiguous and leaving the workflow under-structured.

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?

For a 5-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema description coverage, this description is significantly incomplete. It gives a useful checkpoint/restore workflow hint, but omits required `object_name` semantics and the roles of `dry_run`, `options`, and `operation_id`; the output schema covers return values, but input-side completeness is lacking.

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 adds meaning to the required `poses` parameter by specifying stress poses for major joints, but it does not explain required `object_name`, `options`, `operation_id`, or clearly connect "Default proposal" to `dry_run`.

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 the resource precisely (stress poses for shoulder/elbow/wrist/hip/knee/ankle), but it is a noun phrase with no clear action verb; it does not say whether the tool creates, proposes, applies, or validates those poses. The name helps, but the description alone does not clearly distinguish it from deformation_analyze, deformation_compare, or other QA tools.

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 "Default proposal; checkpoint before temporary poses, finally restore" hints at a workflow, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no alternatives or exclusions are named. An agent is left to infer that this is for temporary deformation stress tests rather than analysis/compare siblings.

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