cherry_pick_decoration_modification

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two behaviors: a 3D stage opens on success and oversized meshes are decimated for it. But it says nothing about whether this requires a specific auth/plan state at call time, what happens on merge conflicts, whether the operation is reversible, or what the result contains. Large portions of the text are pricing/upsell copy rather than behavioral disclosure.

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 useful content is one sentence at the top; the rest is tier/upgrade marketing ('Everything in Free, plus calibration...', pricing URL) plus an INLINE 3D STAGE section that largely repeats the first sentence. Substantial text does not earn its place or help the agent invoke the tool.

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 annotations, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the definition is far short of what an agent needs to call it correctly — the three version-id parameters are the crux of the operation and are completely unexplained.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It never explains ancestor_preset_version_id vs source_preset_version_id vs target_preset_version_id, feature_id, or source_branch_id; 'from source onto target' is the only faint hint and covers at most two of the five.

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 first sentence gives a verb+resource ('Apply ONE field modification from source onto target'), which is a real purpose statement. However, it never says what a 'decoration modification' is or how it differs from the sibling tools cherry_pick_feature_modification and cherry_pick_modification, so an agent cannot distinguish the three from the text alone. The 'ONE' constraint is the only differentiator.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives (e.g., cherry_pick_feature_modification, cherry_pick_modification) despite three near-identical siblings existing. The only usage constraint is 'ONE field modification', which is implied by the name and does not tell the agent which of the cherry-pick tools to pick.

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