noise_displace

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it explains that amount is the maximum shift in metres, that scale controls bump size, that seed is deterministic, that noise is sampled in world space, and that the return value is the largest shift that happened. It lacks explicit disclosure of whether the mesh is modified in place and whether changes are reversible.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then methodically covers parameters. Each sentence contributes useful information for a 9-parameter tool, though it is somewhat lengthy. No significant repetition or wasted text.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema descriptions, the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, usage, parameters, prerequisites, and return value. Gaps remain around the required 'object' parameter and whether the operation is destructive in place.

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 must compensate. It clearly explains amount, scale, octaves, seed, mode, where, spread, and falloff behavior. It does not explicitly define the required 'object' parameter (name or ID) and only partially describes falloff enum options, but overall adds substantial meaning beyond the bare 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Move the vertices by fractal noise.' The use cases ('bumps on a surface, worn stone, uneven ground') clarify intent. It does not explicitly distinguish from siblings such as deform or sculpt, so it falls short of 5.

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 clear usage context (bumps, worn stone, uneven ground) and a prerequisite ('subdivide_faces or subdivide first'). Conditions like 'Without where the whole mesh moves' tell the agent when a parameter is optional. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like deform or sculpt.

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