object-shrinkwrap

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral implications. It states the action and that a shrinkwrap modifier is involved, but does not explicitly mention whether the modifier is applied non-destructively or if the operation is reversible. The 'apply' parameter hint is in the schema, but the description does not elaborate on side effects or mutation 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 description is a single, clear sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently communicates the core functionality without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent to parse and understand.

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 description is adequate for a simple modifier operation but lacks specifics about return values, potential errors, or requirements (e.g., if the target must be a mesh). It does not mention whether the modifier is created directly on the object or if the operation returns a status. Given the tool's moderate complexity, more detail on expected outcomes would improve completeness.

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 already provides detailed per-parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Apply the shrinkwrap modifier immediately'), so the tool description does not need to repeat them. However, it adds context by explaining the overall purpose, which helps an agent infer how the parameters (object, target, offset, apply) interact. This adds value beyond the schema alone.

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 clearly states the tool's function: snapping a mesh's vertices to a target object's surface via a shrinkwrap modifier. It specifies the resource (mesh), the operation (snap), and the mechanism (shrinkwrap modifier), effectively distinguishing it from other object-related tools.

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 lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative mesh modification tools. It does not mention prerequisites, ideal scenarios, or contrast with similar operations (e.g., other modifiers or snapping methods). Without explicit usage context, an agent may not know when to invoke it.

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