path_carve

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 discloses the deformation rule ('vertices move only down by depth times a weight, so the road follows the hills'), the effect of negative depth, and the hard-edge case for falloff=0. It does not state return values or any auth/permission context, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loads the action, then proceeds param-by-param with no filler; nearly every clause carries information. It is on the longer side but each sentence earns its place.

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 five-param, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers geometry semantics, the grid precondition, and the deformation behavior well. The main gap is the 'terrain' input reference and any notion of failure/edge cases, but the agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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, and it does for four of five params: points format and minimum, width semantics ('full width of the level floor'), depth sign convention, and falloff default plus 0 behavior. The 'terrain' parameter's type/expected reference is only implied ('a mesh from the terrain tool').

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 ('press ... into a terrain mesh') with the specific resource and mechanism ('along a polyline'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like terrain, sculpt, noise_displace, and subdivide. An agent can tell what this does without opening the schema.

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?

Ends with an explicit prerequisite ('Use this on a mesh from the terrain tool') and adds a grid-resolution rule of thumb ('resolution of at most a third of width'). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or named alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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