ft_setup_eye_tracking_full

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

The description discloses that it creates 12 shape keys and ensures blink/lowerlid exist, which is behavioral. However, with no annotations, it omits details like prerequisite mesh conditions, potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing shape keys), or permission requirements. 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 concise, using two short paragraphs: one for purpose and one for parameters. No wasted words, and the structure is easy to parse.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the main functionality. However, it lacks prerequisites (e.g., mesh must be a specific type or have certain topology) and does not mention return values or errors. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates by explaining both parameters: mesh_name is the face mesh, armature_name is optional for eye bone configuration. This adds meaningful context beyond the raw schema types and defaults.

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 clearly states it sets up extended eye tracking beyond basic blink/lowerlid, listing the 12 specific shape keys created. This differentiates it from simpler eye tracking tools and provides a specific verb+resource.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., ft_create_arkit_shapes or vrc_setup_eye_tracking). The context is implied but not stated, leaving the agent to infer usage without clear exclusion criteria.

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