Skin and skin combination check

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already tells the agent this is a safe read operation, so the description only needs to add analytical behavior. It does disclose useful semantics – that combined skins resolve slot conflicts by last-wins and that unfilled slots are reported – but says nothing about the shape of the result or how pass/fail against limits is reported.

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?

It is compact, but the telegraphic fragments ('slots several skins set (last wins), slots none fills') are hard to parse and read as under-specification rather than genuine concision. The sentence is not front-loaded with what the agent gets back.

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 an 11-parameter tool with a nested object and no output schema, the description omits too much: the required input file, the device-budget limits object that drives pass/fail, and the render/animation options are unaddressed. An agent could invoke it but would not know what the call actually returns.

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?

With 11 parameters at 45% schema description coverage, the description should carry real weight here, but it only illuminates 'atlas' and 'pack' (exact draw calls) and gestures at 'combinations'. The nested 'limits' budget object, 'fps', 'render', 'animations', 'renderTime', and 'skeleton' get no mention at all.

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 names the resource (skins, and combinations of skins) and the specific checks performed: attachment counts, slot conflicts, and per-frame budget. That is well beyond a restatement of the name, though the phrasing is compressed enough that an agent must re-read it to extract the list of checks.

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?

There is no statement of when to pick this tool over the many adjacent analysis siblings such as spine_budget, spine_validate, spine_inspect, or spine_mix_check. 'atlas or pack for exact draw calls' is guidance about parameters, not about choosing between tools, so usage must be inferred.

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