production.retopology_create_candidate

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

Adds useful context beyond annotations: it creates a checkpoint, establishes an immutable relationship, copies dependencies, and refuses MASTER. Annotations already declare non-readOnly, non-idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so this extra behavioral detail is valuable and consistent.

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 three dense sentences, front-loading the core action before constraints. It is appropriately sized, though some jargon reduces immediate clarity.

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?

Provides important behavioral context for a mutation tool and does not need to explain return values because an output schema exists. However, for a four-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, the missing parameter documentation leaves a clear completeness gap.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description needs to explain the four parameters. It hints that source_fingerprint relates to the 'fresh M5 signature' and mentions target_object, but target_object is not in the schema, and object_name, operation_id, and options are unexplained.

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 creation action ('Create checkpointed Candidate Game Mesh') and the immutable HIGH→LOW relationship it establishes. The purpose is understandable, though jargon like 'fresh M5 signature' and 'MASTER refused' obscures some meaning, and it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as mesh_candidate_create or character_create_candidate.

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?

Implies prerequisites: a fresh M5 signature is required, MASTER is refused, and target_object must be explicit rather than name-matched. However, it does not clearly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like production.mesh_candidate_create or production.retopology_validate.

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