entity_make_unique

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real semantic context by explaining the effect on shared geometry, but omits what happens to the original shared definition and whether other instances are affected. Adequate but not rich.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for a mutation tool with three undocumented parameters.

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 a non-idempotent mutation with three parameters at 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the one-line description is insufficient. It should at least clarify the target parameters and the effect on the remaining shared geometry.

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% across three parameters (path, model_id, entity_id), and the description mentions none of them. Since the schema provides no descriptions, the description should compensate but does not, leaving parameter meaning fully undocumented.

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 gives a specific verb+resource+effect: making a component instance or group independent of shared geometry. It distinguishes the operation from siblings like entity_duplicate or entity_group implicitly, though it never names them. A clear statement of purpose, but no explicit sibling routing.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus entity_duplicate, entity_group, or other entity mutations, and no prerequisites or conditions are stated. The agent is left to infer context entirely from the purpose sentence.

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