softbody_handoff_create

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

Annotations (all false) provide no safety hints, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'expiring' (time-limited slot) and 'reviewed' (implies validation), but does not disclose side effects, authorization needs, error states, or whether the operation is reversible. Without annotations, this is insufficient.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the action. However, it omits crucial details, making it under-specified rather than efficiently helpful. It earns its place but fails to inform adequately.

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 nested schema, lack of annotations, and presence of an output schema (not shown), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the workflow, what 'runner' means, how the export slot is used, or how the tool relates to siblings like softbody_handoff_validate or softbody_mod_build.

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%, meaning no parameter descriptions. The description does not explain any of the complex parameters inside the 'request' object (e.g., mod_name, asset_name, coordinates). It adds no meaning beyond what is in the schema definitions, which are already visible. The agent receives no help understanding what to provide.

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 uses a specific verb 'Create' and identifies the resource as 'Blender export slot' with modifiers 'expiring', 'reviewed', 'exact-coordinate runner'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like softbody_handoff_validate or softbody_mod_build. The term 'runner' is jargon but still conveys the core purpose.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, preconditions, or that it should be followed by validation (softbody_handoff_validate). The agent must infer usage context from sibling names.

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