limb

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful geometry behavior ('ends are rounded and stay inside the path'), but says nothing about whether it creates a new object, needs a selection, or how apply=true affects the scene.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and output before the radius rule and use cases. No filler, though the 'Good for arms, legs...' list is more flavor than essential information.

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 six-parameter creation tool with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description conveys the result geometry and radii rule but omits return values, object naming, and the effect of sides/subdivisions/apply. Adequate but with clear gaps an agent would hit in practice.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and only partially meets it. It clarifies radii semantics well ('one radius per point, or one radius for all'), but points, name, sides, subdivisions, and apply are left entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 concrete verb and output ('Make a smooth tube along a polyline of world points') plus the technique used ('Skin plus Subdivision'), so an agent knows exactly what geometry it produces. It stops short of naming sibling generators (sweep, loft, extrude_profile) that also build geometry along a path, so differentiation is only partial.

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 phrase 'Good for arms, legs, tails, tentacles, branches' gives real use-case context for when this tool fits. However it offers no when-not guidance and never points to alternatives such as sweep, loft, or extrude_profile, leaving the agent to infer which path-based generator to pick.

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