production.retopology_priority_map

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that per-vertex reduction weights remain local and are recomputed, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it does not explain permissions, output behavior, or option effects.

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 concept before noting that reduction weights remain local and are recomputed. It avoids boilerplate, though the colon-separated list is dense and does not establish a clear action-oriented structure.

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. However, the description omits parameter meaning, usage context, and what the options object controls, leaving an agent without enough information to invoke the tool confidently despite the simple two-parameter 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention object_name or options at all. The required object_name parameter and the open-ended options object remain completely undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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 the domain concept, a priority rule set with specific considerations such as explicit regions, curvature, and protection rules, but it does not state a clear action verb or say whether the tool creates, retrieves, or applies the map. The name implies a retopology priority map, yet the description leaves the operation ambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, what prerequisites it has, or which sibling retopology tools are alternatives. The description only lists features of the priority rule set and does not help an agent choose it over tools like retopology_plan or retopology_analyze.

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