production.retopology_transfer_morphs

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

Annotations already declare mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive/non-idempotent behavior. The description adds one useful behavioral trait beyond annotations: unsupported changed-topology cases are 'safely rejected' rather than failing destructively. However, it omits what the transfer actually mutates, what permissions or preconditions are required, and how mode/options affect behavior.

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 single sentence is compact and free of repetition, but it is not front-loaded with the tool's purpose. It spends its only sentence on a constraint while omitting what the tool does, so conciseness comes at the cost of usefulness.

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?

For a five-parameter mutation tool with no parameter descriptions and an existing output schema, the description carries too little of the needed input semantics. The output schema relieves it of explaining return values, but it still should cover what a morph transfer does, what mode='analyze' versus execution means, and how operation identifiers are used.

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% across five parameters (mode, options, operation, operation_id, relationship), and the description mentions none of them. It does not explain the default 'analyze' mode, what options control, or how operation/operation_id/relationship should be supplied, leaving the agent with no semantic guidance beyond bare parameter names.

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 only a constraint ('Only exact already-preserved morph dependencies are supported') and never says what the tool does. The purpose is inferable from the name (transfer morphs), but the description itself does not provide a specific verb+resource or differentiate it from siblings such as retopology_transfer_weights and retopology_transfer_attributes.

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 indicates a precondition (only exact preserved dependencies are supported; changed-topology morphs are rejected) but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no alternatives such as retopology_analyze_morph_transfer, and no workflow context. The agent must infer applicability from a single limitation sentence.

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