softbody_mod_validate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the description's mention of 'recompile' and 'hash-check' does not contradict them and adds minor context about the process. However, it does not elaborate on any side effects or limitations beyond the annotations.

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?

Single sentence with 10 words, no unnecessary text. Slightly more detail would improve understanding without hurting conciseness.

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 0% schema coverage and no output schema view, the description lacks detail on inputs, outputs, and preconditions. It fails to provide a complete picture for a validation tool that likely has specific requirements.

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%, and the description does not explain the two required parameters (mod_name, asset_name) or how they relate to the bundle. Without added meaning, the agent may not know how to fill them correctly.

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?

Describes a specific action: recompile and hash-check a bundle of DAE/JBeam/material/provenance files. The verb 'recompile' and noun 'bundle' with specific file types clearly distinguish this from sibling tools like mod_validate (generic) or softbody_mod_build (building).

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 when-to-use, when-not-to, or alternative tools are mentioned. The purpose implies usage for validating softbody mods, but guidance is missing, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name and siblings.

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