path_carve

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description discloses the actual deformation semantics: 'Existing vertices move only down by depth times a weight, so the road follows the hills.' This tells the agent precisely what gets modified and the directional constraint of the effect, plus a resolution caveat (grid resolution at most a third of width). Rich context the annotations alone cannot convey.

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 definition is front-loaded with the core purpose before parameter detail, and nearly every sentence adds usable information. It is somewhat dense and could tighten the resolution aside, but no sentence is wasted.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, all parameter semantics, the deformation behavior, the source-mesh requirement, and a practical resolution guideline. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 well: points (world [x,y] pairs, extras ignored, minimum two), width (full width in metres of the level floor), depth (sink distance, negative raises a bank), and falloff (sloped-edge width, defaults to half of width, 0 = hard edge). Every non-trivial parameter gains meaning beyond the raw JSON types.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Press a road, a ditch or a path into a terrain mesh along a polyline.' This is far more concrete than the bare tool name and immediately distinguishes the operation from generic deformation siblings like sculpt, deform, or noise_displace.

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 a clear precondition and intended context: 'Use this on a mesh from the terrain tool,' which routes the agent to the right source object. It does not, however, name alternatives or state when NOT to use this versus e.g. sculpt or noise_displace, so it stops short of explicit routing.

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