deform

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the vertex-density requirement and that subdivide_faces should precede it, plus that origin defaults to the object origin.

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-loads the purpose, then walks through parameters in a compact, information-dense way. Every sentence targets a parameter or prerequisite; slightly dense but no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, and for a destructive mutation tool the description supplies purpose, units, geometry semantics, and a prerequisite. The main gap is the undocumented lock_x/lock_y flags, which an agent may need to interpret.

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 0% schema coverage the description carries the burden, and it delivers: it specifies amount units (degrees for bend/twist, factor for taper/stretch), the axis meaning per kind with a worked example, origin as a world point, and limits as a [0,1] fraction. It leaves lock_x, lock_y, object, and kind unexplained, so it covers roughly half the parameters richly.

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 (bend/twist/taper/stretch) and resource (the whole mesh), enumerating the exact deformation modes. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like transform_objects, sculpt, or noise_displace 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?

Gives a concrete prerequisite: 'The mesh needs enough vertices along the axis: subdivide_faces first,' routing the agent to subdivide_faces when appropriate. It lacks explicit when-not conditions or alternative-tool exclusions, but the prerequisite guidance is clear context.

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