production.retopology_transfer_weights

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

Annotations already declare a non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation. The description adds real context beyond that: the operation is a 'proposal' (draft candidate rather than a committed result) and it performs verification of weight sums, influence counts, leakage, and optional explicit poses. It still omits what the proposal acts on, whether it commits, and how failures surface.

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?

One compact sentence with the action front-loaded and the verification checks after the semicolon, no filler. It is dense to the point of jargon-heavy shorthand ('sums/influences/leakage'), but nothing is wasted.

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 mutating tool with no schema descriptions, the description leaves mode/options/operation completely opaque, and does not clarify that the tool only proposes (versus committing) a candidate. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the invocation surface remains under-specified.

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 all five parameters (mode, options, operation, operation_id, relationship) are undocumented. The description's mention of 'optional explicit poses' hints at one option but does not map to any parameter; notably mode defaults to 'analyze' while the description promises a transfer proposal, and that tension is unexplained.

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?

States a specific mechanism and object: barycentric surface transfer onto a new candidate, plus verification of sums/influences/leakage. An agent can tell this is the weight-transfer step rather than a validate or transfer-attributes step, though the description never says 'weights' explicitly nor names the sibling it differs from.

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 when-to-use, prerequisite, or alternative guidance. It does not mention that production.retopology_validate_weights exists for validation-only, nor how it relates to production.retopology_transfer_attributes or retopology_transfer_morphs, so the agent must infer selection from the name alone.

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