vertex_group_operation

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It explains each operation and the return value, but it does not state whether changes are in-place, reversible, permission-sensitive, or which operations affect other vertex groups beyond the brief NORMALIZE_ALL note.

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 front-loaded with a clear one-sentence summary, then structured into Args and Returns sections. Its length is justified by nine operations and ten parameters, and no sentence 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?

Given 10 parameters, 9 operation modes, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is largely complete for invocation. It could be stronger by clarifying which parameters apply only to specific operations and by noting side effects or undo behavior for these weight mutations.

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%, so the description must document parameter meaning. It does so for all 10 parameters, including operation-specific semantics and valid ranges for factor, repeat, threshold, offset, gain, max_groups, and steps.

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 verb phrase, 'Clean up or reshape the weights,' and a specific resource, 'in a vertex group.' The operation enum and explanations make the scope unambiguous and clearly separate it from sibling tools like assign_vertex_group, list_vertex_groups, and remove_vertex_group.

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 operation list implies when certain modes are useful, such as NORMALIZE_ALL for armatures and LIMIT_TOTAL for game engines. However, the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions.

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