precision_weight_paint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It lists operations (e.g., 'gradient_along_chain', 'transfer_weights') and their parameters, implying modification of vertex weights. However, it does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, or the fact that it permanently alters mesh data. The behavioral impact is understandable but not explicitly stated.

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 brief yet comprehensive: an initial purpose sentence followed by a well-organized list of operations with nested parameters. Every line adds value, no redundancy. The structure is easy to scan and interpret.

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 complexity (multiple operations with varied parameters) and the schema's 0% coverage, the description provides complete guidance for all operations. An output schema exists (per context) so return values need not be explained. The description leaves no ambiguity about how to invoke each operation.

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?

The input schema has 0% coverage with only names and types for 'mesh_name', 'operation', and 'params' (string). The description adds exhaustive semantic meaning by enumerating all operations and their specific sub-parameters (e.g., 'chain_root', 'falloff', 'threshold', 'group', 'factor'). This completely compensates for the schema's lack of detail.

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 provides 'Precision vertex weight operations' with 'far more control than auto-weights.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'armature_auto_weight' and 'vrc_auto_weight' by emphasizing manual precision. The verb 'paint' and resource 'vertex weights' are specific.

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 when advanced control is needed beyond auto-weights ('Far more control than auto-weights'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives beyond the one comparison. It provides clear context for use but lacks exclusion criteria.

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