object.shrinkwrap

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It reveals the high-level effect but omits side effects (e.g., permanence via 'apply', modifier stack behavior, undoability). Lacks depth on behavioral traits beyond the basic function.

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 wasted words. However, given the tool's 4 parameters and complexity, it may be too terse to fully set context. Still, it is efficiently front-loaded.

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?

Without an output schema and with 4 parameters (2 required), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the effect of 'apply', 'offset', return values, or the overall workflow. The tool is more complex than the description implies.

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 compensate. However, it does not mention the 'apply', 'offset', or parameter-specific details. The schema titles already provide meaning, but the description adds no param context, leaving a gap for the agent to interpret.

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 action: snapping a mesh's vertices onto a target surface using a SHRINKWRAP modifier. It specifies the verb 'snap' and the resource 'mesh', and distinguishes this tool from general modifier tools like 'modifiers.add' by naming the specific modifier type.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other modifier or mesh deformation tools). There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context about its typical use case.

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