ft_validate_shapes

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

No annotations provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It indicates the tool reports issues (read-like behavior) but does not explicitly state whether it modifies anything or has side effects. The verb 'validate' suggests non-destructive analysis, but more clarity would improve 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 very concise and well-structured: a one-line purpose, a bullet list of reported issues, and clear parameter descriptions. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 has only 2 parameters, no output schema, and a focused purpose, the description covers essential context. It explains what it validates and what it checks. Could mention if results are returned or printed, but not critical for understanding.

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% (signal), but the description adds detailed parameter descriptions: mesh_name as 'Name of the face mesh' and standard with allowed values and shape counts ('arkit' 52, 'unified' 70+). This meaningfully supplements the schema, which only provides titles 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 the tool validates blend shapes against ARKit or Unified Expressions standards. It lists specific issues reported (present/missing, empty, excessive displacement, symmetry). Distinguishes from sibling tools like ft_create_arkit_shapes or vrc_validate by focusing on validation of existing shapes.

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 implies usage for checking blend shape conformity but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ft_export_shape_key_report or vrc_validate. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use statements.

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