shrinkwrap

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses behavior of specific parameters ('project moves them along axis', 'offset keeps a gap in metres') and the subdivide prerequisite, which is useful. But it lacks critical behavioral details: it mutates geometry in place (no reversibility info), no mention of whether it requires edit mode or specific object types, and no performance or return-value notes.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then parameter behavior, then a prerequisite tip. No filler; every clause adds meaning.

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?

The description covers the core action and some parameter behavior, but for a mesh-modifying tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, it omits important context: whether the operation is destructive or reversible, how it handles targets without a surface (e.g., open meshes), and output/return behavior. The subdivide prerequisite is a good start but not enough for full completeness.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: it explains 'method project moves them along axis (default Z) in direction', defines 'offset' as 'keeps a gap in metres', and gives use-case context for axis. However, it doesn't explain the 'nearest_surface' vs 'nearest_vertex' methods or the direction enum values, leaving some parameters under-specified.

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+resource: 'Snap the vertices of object onto the surface of target', with concrete use-case examples (clothes onto a body, mesh onto sculpt, floor onto terrain). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like move_to_contact, place_on, or ground, which serve different projection/placement purposes.

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 concrete usage context (clothes onto body, clean mesh onto sculpt, floor onto terrain) and includes the key prerequisite 'Subdivide the object first for a smooth fit', which is actionable guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives like move_to_contact or place_on, so it lacks sibling-level routing.

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