add_damage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral load and does well: it discloses that the effect is a live, editable Geometry Nodes modifier ('Roxy Damage') rather than a destructive bake, describes what geometry physically changes, and names make_game_asset as the step that bakes it into the normal map. It doesn't cover permissions, undo, or applicability preconditions (existing convex edges), which keeps it at 4.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then mechanism/workflow, then the exclusion. Efficient overall, though the first sentence is dense with descriptive clauses that could be trimmed.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and seven parameters, the description covers purpose, the modifier mechanism, the baking workflow, and exclusions adequately. It doesn't describe the returned state or how the added modifier interacts with manage_modifiers, leaving minor 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 high (86%), so the schema already documents seed, size, depth, amount, objects, spacing and edge_angle. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail beyond restating the wear concept ('wear shading follows the chips'), so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: it adds chipped edges as real geometry (flakes, beveled rims, wear shading) via a 'Roxy Damage' modifier. An agent can tell this apart from additive detail tools like add_surface_detail or add_masonry, and the explicit 'Not for clean new products' scope note seals the boundary.

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?

Gives clear context for when it applies ('wood, stone, concrete, painted props') and a scope exclusion ('Not for clean new products'), plus the downstream workflow with make_game_asset. It stops short of naming the specific alternative an agent should reach for when the exclusion applies, so it's just shy of a 5.

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