noise_displace

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true; the description adds rich behavior beyond them: deterministic seeding, world-space sampling, the bounding meaning of `amount`, per-mode semantics, the soft-border `spread`/`falloff` behavior, and the return value ('largest shift that happened'). This is consistent with and additive to the destructive annotation.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the parameter notes are dense and well-ordered with no filler. It runs somewhat long, but nearly every sentence adds actionable meaning about a 9-parameter tool.

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 complex 9-parameter mesh mutation with no output schema, the description covers modes, scoping, falloff, determinism, prerequisites, and the return value, leaving no significant gap an agent would need before calling it.

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 does so: amount, scale, octaves, seed, mode, where, spread, and falloff are each explained with units and qualitative effects. Only `object` is left implicit, which is self-evident.

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 a concrete verb+resource ('Move the vertices by fractal noise') and names concrete use cases (bumps, worn stone, uneven ground). It is specific and distinguishable from generic transforms, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with adjacent siblings like deform, sculpt, or rock, which also reshape geometry.

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?

It gives clear usage context ('Use it for bumps... uneven ground') and an important prerequisite with named alternatives ('The mesh needs enough vertices... subdivide_faces or subdivide first'). It also notes the default scope ('Without `where` the whole mesh moves'). No explicit when-not guidance is given.

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