add_planks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a solid job: it discloses that a live, editable Geometry Nodes modifier ('Roxy Planks') is created, that per-board material values ('roxy_board') drive tone variation, that bevel/chips/weathering apply per board, and that make_game_asset later bakes gaps into the normal map. It does not state whether the input solid is replaced or preserved, nor any selection/permission prerequisites, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core transformation, then supporting behavior, with no filler sentences. The trailing list of target artifacts is slightly dense but each clause (modifier name, roxy_board, baking) carries information an agent needs.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers role, downstream interaction with make_game_asset, and per-board behavior. Remaining gaps are minor: what object state results after the call and any prerequisites for the solid input.

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 83%, so the schema already documents gap, axis, offset, board_width and objects. The description only implicitly references gaps ('with gaps') and adds no syntax, units, or defaults beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource: turning a solid (box, lid, extrusion) into real boards/staves with gaps. The output artifacts (crates, chests, floors, fences, barrels, doors) make it clearly distinguishable from siblings like add_masonry or add_surface_detail without opening any schema.

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 list of use cases (crates, chests, floors, fences, barrels, doors) gives clear context for when this is the right tool, and it notes the relationship to make_game_asset. However it never explicitly names a sibling alternative or states when NOT to use it versus e.g. add_masonry or create_primitive.

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