normalize_weights

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions lock_active preserving the active group, but does not disclose side effects such as whether other groups are overwritten, whether the operation is reversible, or whether it affects only the specified object. The scope of normalization (all groups vs. selected groups) is ambiguous.

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 a single concise sentence that states the core operation and the key lock_active behavior. It is efficient and easy to parse, though it could be slightly more structured with explicit parameter references.

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 tool with three parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It lacks detail on group selection semantics, object scope, and the exact effect of normalization (e.g., whether weights are renormalized proportionally or set to absolute values). This is inadequate for reliable agent invocation.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters. It explains lock_active (keeps active group unchanged), but provides no meaning for the 'groups' parameter (which groups to normalize) or 'object' (target object). This leaves two of three parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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 states a clear action (normalize vertex weights to 1) and mentions the lock_active behavior, which distinguishes it from simple weight-setting tools like set_vertex_group_weights. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings such as find_unweighted_vertices or get_bone_influence, so it falls short of a 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. An agent must infer the appropriate context from the tool name alone.

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