production.game_mesh_triangulation_preview

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false; the description reinforces this by promising weights and morphs remain intact, which is genuine added context about blast radius. However it says nothing about where the candidate is written, what it consumes, or why 'deterministic' coexists with idempotentHint=false (repeated calls still produce new candidates).

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the non-destructiveness clause is placed where it matters. Slightly jargon-heavy ('evaluation candidate') but nothing is wasted.

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 and annotations exist, so return values and safety need not be explained, but the description leaves all five inputs unexplained and gives no operational context for a mutation-shaped tool. For a tool with an undocumented mode/operation/relationship triple, this is under-specified.

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 five parameters, so the description must carry the burden and it does not. Names like mode (defaulting to 'analyze'), operation, operation_id, relationship and options are entirely opaque, and no mode values or option keys are hinted at.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Create a deterministic triangulated evaluation candidate') and clarifies the scope limit (source authoring mesh, weights and morphs stay intact). An agent can grasp what the tool produces, but nothing distinguishes it from near-neighbours like game_mesh_validate_triangulation or mesh_candidate_create.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The word 'evaluation' weakly implies a pre-validation step, but the agent must infer when this preview is appropriate versus game_mesh_validate_triangulation or game_mesh_prepare_package.

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