deform

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does well: it gives units per mode (degrees vs factor), explains axis semantics with a worked example, states the origin default and the [0,1] limits range. It omits whether the operation mutates in place/destructively and says nothing about lock_x/lock_y behavior.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the operation and modes come first, then units, then axis semantics, then defaults and the prerequisite. Every sentence adds actionable information with 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?

For an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers units, axis, origin, limits, and the vertex-density prerequisite. The undocumented lock_x/lock_y and the absence of any statement about in-place modification are the remaining 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it explains amount units, axis meaning per mode, origin, and limits. It leaves lock_x and lock_y entirely undefined, which is a real gap for two of the eight parameters.

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?

Names a specific operation (deform) and enumerates the four modes (bend, twist, taper, stretch) with the resource being 'the whole mesh'. The mode list distinguishes it from siblings like transform_objects, array, or subdivide.

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?

Provides a concrete prerequisite ('The mesh needs enough vertices along the axis: subdivide_faces first'), which routes the agent to a sibling tool. It does not, however, state when to prefer deform over transform_objects or the array tools, so exclusions are absent.

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