Create mesh warp

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: it states that a new baseCOMP is created with many child nodes, that it exposes a Zoom knob, and that the output includes a summary and a JSON block with paths, errors, warnings, and a preview image. This covers creation, outputs, and side effects thoroughly, complementing the annotation's readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true.

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 appropriately front-loaded with the primary purpose and differentiator, then details the internal build and output. It is somewhat long but every sentence earns its place by providing necessary information for correct invocation. A slight trim could be made, but it remains clear and efficient.

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 the tool has 7 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description compensates extremely well by detailing the return format (summary plus JSON block with container path, node paths, output path, exposed controls, errors, warnings, inline preview image). It also covers the internal structure (Geometry COMP, Constant MAT, Camera, Light, Render TOP) and the exposed controls, making the tool's behavior fully predictable.

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 coverage is 100%, providing a baseline of 3, but the description enriches each parameter: source_path is described as 'brought in through a Select TOP'; rows/cols get a performance trade-off note ('more rows/cols give a smoother curve but a heavier mesh'); warp gets a human-readable mapping ('bulge (dome), wave (ripples across X), cylinder (half-cylinder wrap), or flat'); amount is clarified as ignored when warp is 'flat'; expose_controls is linked to a 'live Zoom (camera distance) knob'; parent_path states the default. This added meaning justifies a top score.

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 uses a specific verb ('Map a source TOP onto a curved or irregular surface via a deformable textured grid') and clearly distinguishes this tool from the sibling create_projection_mapping by calling it the 'curved-surface upgrade to create_projection_mapping's flat corner-pin'. It also lists concrete use cases (domes, columns, sculptures) making its purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly contrasts this tool with a sibling (create_projection_mapping), saying it is for curved surfaces while the sibling is for flat corner-pin. It also describes the internal components built (Geometry COMP, Constant MAT, orthographic Camera, etc.) and the output structure (Null, Zoom knob, JSON return), giving an agent clear context for when and how to use it.

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