production.game_mesh_validate_tangents

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the description's job is lighter. It still adds real value beyond them: it runs the installed Blender calc_tangents operator, does so on a copy (no mutation of the source mesh), and names the two rejection causes (missing/degenerate UVs, invalid corner tangent frames).

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 dense sentence with no filler; the operative constraints (use calc_tangents, run on a copy, reject bad UVs/frames) are front-loaded. Jargon-heavy but every clause carries information.

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 rich annotations cover results and safety, so the description needn't explain return values. However, with a required undocumented 'relationship' parameter, an agent lacks what it needs to actually invoke this correctly — that gap is not covered anywhere else.

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 would need to compensate for both 'relationship' (required) and 'options'. It says nothing about either, leaving the agent to guess what the relationship handle refers to and what options are accepted.

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+resource (validate tangents) and names the mechanism (Blender calc_tangents) plus the failure conditions it rejects. It reads distinctly from siblings like uv_validate or game_mesh_prepare_normals, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with material_validate_tangent_workflow or game_mesh_validate.

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 guidance on when to call this versus uv_validate, uv_analyze, game_mesh_validate, or material_validate_tangent_workflow, nor any stated prerequisite (e.g. after normals preparation). The rejection criteria hint at a QA context but no when/when-not framing is given.

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