production.retopology_project_to_source

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

Annotations already establish a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: projection gates reject unrelated surfaces, protected vertices remain fixed, and the operation follows an immutable proposal/checkpoint cycle. It does not contradict the annotations.

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?

Three tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the core operation. Each sentence adds distinct information about scope, gating, protection, or process, with no filler.

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?

The description covers purpose and important behavioral traits, and the output schema removes the need to explain return values. However, for a complex mutation tool with five undocumented parameters and many retopology siblings, it leaves invocation and tool-selection guidance incomplete.

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 schema has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description mentions none of them (mode, options, operation, operation_id, relationship). An agent would have no textual guidance on what values to supply or how the parameters shape the projection.

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: bounded BVH source projection onto a new candidate, with correspondence gates and protected vertices. It distinguishes the tool from generic retopology operations, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as compare_source or optimize_region.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like production.retopology_compare_source or production.retopology_optimize_region. The phrase 'on a new candidate' implies a precondition, but no when/when-not rules are given.

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