Analyze morph transfer after retopology by measuring source morph preservation and flagging cases where topology changes require manual or later-pipeline work.
Measure source morphs and preservation; topology-changed morph transfer reports manual/later-pipeline required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| options | No | ||
| relationship | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by stating that topology-changed morph transfer is reported as requiring manual/later-pipeline work, though it omits measurement details and limits.
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 a single compact sentence with the core measurement stated first and the topology-change caveat second. There is no wasted text, and the structure is front-loaded.
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 explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the missing relationship/options semantics and lack of sibling routing leave clear gaps for correct invocation.
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% and the description never mentions the required relationship parameter or the options parameter. It therefore provides no semantic meaning for either input beyond what is already visible in the bare schema.
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 a specific verb ('Measure') and resource ('source morphs/preservation'), and the topology-changed caveat states a concrete outcome. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing this analysis from retopology_transfer_morphs or other retopology siblings, so it is clear but not fully sibling-differentiated.
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 description implies an assessment use case and notes what happens for topology-changed morph transfer, but it gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative tool guidance. A caller must infer that this is a pre/post-transfer analysis step.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.