wearable_from_mesh

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the description carries the substantive behavioral load and does so reasonably: it discloses that rigging and morphs are copied onto the mesh and that the item is fitted to the figure. The default-pose precondition is a genuine operational constraint not present in annotations. It does not say whether the source mesh is preserved or replaced, nor what happens when the precondition fails, which keeps it below 5.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the mechanism, followed by the precondition and the secondary use case. Every clause carries information; the trailing re-rigging sentence is slightly appended but adds a real capability, so the text is efficient rather than padded.

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 an 8-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the mechanism and the main precondition adequately. It does not state what is produced (presumably a new labeled item) or what error condition arises when the mesh is not on the figure, leaving the agent without return-value or failure expectations. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 88%, so the schema already explains item, figure, kind, shape, morphs, smoothing, and allow_posed in detail. The description adds only indirect meaning (the default-pose constraint touches allow_posed/shape) and does not clarify the label parameter or the distinction between base and current shape beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific operation (rig-copy/fit via Daz Transfer Utility) on a specific resource (imported garment, hat, armor, hair) and explains the effect: it copies rigging and morphs so the item follows poses. It makes clear this is for meshes that are not yet bound to a figure, and adds the secondary case of re-rigging clothing built for another generation. It never contrasts itself explicitly with sibling tools like wearable_fit or wearable_adjust, so it stops just short of 5.

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?

A concrete precondition is stated: the mesh must already sit on the figure in its default pose, which is exactly the condition an agent needs to check before calling. A second use case (re-rigging clothing from another figure generation) broadens the applicability. There is no explicit exclusion or named alternative tool, but the guidance given is clear context.

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