production.retopology_optimize_region

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, and openWorld=false, and the description adds useful behavior beyond that: it works on a new child candidate, becomes frozen after proposal, rejects shape-key topology changes, and gates acceptance through budget/surface/silhouette/protected checks. It does not clarify revert semantics or side effects in detail, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 compact and front-loads the core purpose before the workflow and validation details. The semicolon-and-slash-heavy phrasing is dense, but every clause carries relevant information and there is little wasted text.

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?

With a high-complexity retopology mutation, 5 undocumented optional parameters, and an output schema present, the description covers purpose, lifecycle, and acceptance constraints but omits parameter semantics and sibling selection guidance. It is adequate for a high-level understanding but incomplete for reliable invocation without opening the schema.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not name or explain `mode`, `options`, `operation`, `operation_id`, or `relationship`. It indirectly hints at lifecycle stages and a frozen operation, but an agent cannot infer parameter values or roles from the description, leaving a major 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?

The description states a specific operation (GUIDED_DECIMATION/LOCAL_RETOPOLOGY) on a specific target (a new child candidate), with scope around global target, semantic/curvature priorities, and zero-weight protection. It is distinguishable from generic retopology siblings because it is explicitly an optimize-region operation on a child candidate, though the heavy jargon makes it less immediately clear than an ideal 5.

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?

It provides a clear workflow sequence: Analyze→propose→preview/apply→verify/revert, and notes that the operation is frozen after proposal. It does not name alternatives among the many retopology siblings or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5 but gives usable execution context.

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