production.retopology_transfer_attributes

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

The annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world operation. The description adds useful context that the transfer occurs on a new candidate and includes per-attribute QA, but it leaves key behavioral details unspecified, such as what happens on QA failure or how source/target selection is handled.

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 efficient sentence with no filler. However, the slash-separated jargon makes it dense and somewhat harder to parse than a more structured sentence would be.

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 output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But for a tool with five entirely undocumented parameters and undefined operation semantics, the description is too sparse to support 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?

The input schema has five parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain any of them. It never mentions mode, options, operation, operation_id, or relationship, so it does not compensate for the schema 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 clear verb ('transfer') and resource ('attribute/custom-property'), scoped to material/POINT/CORNER/FACE domains and a new candidate. It does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling transfer tools such as retopology_transfer_weights or retopology_transfer_morphs.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It does not explain when an agent should choose this attribute transfer over the related weight or morph transfer tools.

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