maya_unreal_make_lods

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the original mesh is not reduced, dry_run avoids scene changes, default percentages are [50,25,12], and it warns that silhouette breakage can occur even with normal metrics. It also explains consequences of disabling keep_borders, keep_hard_edges, and keep_uv_borders, which is thorough and beyond mere operation.

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 well-structured: a concise intro, three high-value warning sentences about visual verification and reduction policy, and a bulleted Args list. Every sentence earns its place, and the length is justified for a tool with seven parameters and important workflow caveats. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose, all parameters with defaults and implications, and the necessary post-action verification. It also explains how lod_group integrates with the Unreal FBX importer, and dry_run's non-destructive behavior. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly without guessing.

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?

With zero schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by defining all seven parameters in the Args section. Each parameter gets a clear explanation: objects (targeting logic), keep_percent (ratio, default, example), lod_group (creation and Unreal import), and the three keep_* flags (what happens when off), plus dry_run. This adds substantial meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 opens with '원본을 복제해 LOD 메시를 만듭니다' (duplicates the original to create LOD meshes) and clarifies '원본(LOD0)은 줄이지 않습니다' (the original LOD0 is not reduced), clearly stating the verb and resource. This distinctly differentiates it from sibling tools like maya_unreal_make_collision or maya_unreal_prepare.

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 gives explicit workflow guidance: visually check with maya_viewport_capture, do not report done based on numbers alone, and do not set reduction rates arbitrarily. It further advises using defaults then asking the user about adjustments, with asset-type-specific tips (characters 70-80, props more aggressive). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives beyond the verification tool, so it misses the 'when-not' dimension.

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