production.mesh_candidate_verify

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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context that annotations cannot express: comparison is performed section by section, and accept/reject is explicitly not implemented (M4) — a limitation an agent must know before calling.

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?

Two short sentences with the capability stated first and the limitation second; no filler. Slightly terse given the undocumented parameters, 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 values need not be described, and annotations cover safety. What remains missing is any explanation of the three inputs, which is a meaningful gap for a tool whose correctness depends on supplying a matching object/candidate pair and a valid regions manifest.

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% for all three parameters. The description only hints that regions_manifest relates to locked-region verification; object_name and candidate_name are left entirely unexplained, and no formats, naming conventions, or manifest schema are given. It does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 pair (compare a candidate mesh with its source) and adds a scope qualifier (section by section). It does not name siblings such as production.mesh_region_verify, nor does it explicitly say how it differs from them, so it falls short of the 5 bar.

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?

'optionally verify locked regions' implies when the regions_manifest path applies, which is useful conditional guidance. However there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over mesh_region_verify or character_validate_locked_regions, so usage is only implied.

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