ft_create_arkit_shapes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It describes the main action but omits details like whether existing shape keys are overwritten, if the operation is reversible, or what the mesh state is after creation. Moderate transparency.

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 line for the purpose followed by a clear bulleted list for parameters. No fluff, every sentence adds value. Well-structured and concise.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description could be more complete. It doesn't state that the tool adds 52 shape keys to the specified mesh, nor how it handles pre-existing shape keys. Lacks clarity on the exact outcome for the mesh.

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 add meaning. It does so thoroughly: explains mesh_name as requiring vertex groups for procedural mode, and describes all three method options with their behaviors and use cases. Adds significant value beyond the schema.

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 'Create all 52 ARKit blend shapes on a face mesh.' This is a specific verb (create) and resource (ARKit blend shapes on face mesh). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like ft_combine_shape_keys or ft_create_unified_expressions.

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 explicitly explains three methods (procedural, template, from_existing) with guidance on when to use each: procedural requires vertex groups, template always works for production, from_existing maps existing keys. It also mentions prerequisites for procedural mode.

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