production.mesh_region_verify

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value by disclosing what is checked (locked positions, shape keys, weights) and the exact failure condition (topology/membership changes), which the annotations cannot convey.

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 the verb first and the tolerance/failure rules packed into the second clause. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

Output schema and annotations relieve the description of return-value and safety explanations, but with 0% parameter coverage and no usage guidance, an agent still lacks what a valid manifest string looks like or how object_name selects the target.

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 both parameters. The description only obliquely maps 'manifest' to the region manifest and '(or a candidate)' to the optional target, leaving the manifest's format and the role of object_name entirely unspecified.

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: verify a region manifest against the mesh or candidate. The scope and failure conditions are clear enough to distinguish it from mesh_region_define or mesh_candidate_verify, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 intent (validate that locked positions, shape keys and weights stayed within tolerance) implies when to reach for it, but the description never says when to use it versus mesh_candidate_verify or character_validate_locked_regions, and gives no prerequisites or workflow placement.

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