recipe.procedural_courtyard

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

Annotations are all false, providing no hints about read-only, idempotency, or destructiveness. The description does not disclose any behavioral aspects—no mention of what changes occur in the scene, whether it creates objects, modifies materials, or requires specific state. It only states risk and maturity levels, which are not behavioral.

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 extremely short, which could be seen as concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It omits essential content, so the brevity is a deficiency, not a virtue. There is no front-loading of key facts because there are no key facts.

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?

For a complex recipe tool with 8 parameters, required arguments, and an output schema, the description is utterly inadequate. It does not explain what the recipe accomplishes, how parameters affect the result, or what the output represents. An agent cannot correctly invoke this tool based on the provided description.

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 description contains no parameter information whatsoever. With schema coverage at 50%, half the parameters lack descriptions, and the description does not compensate by explaining any parameter's purpose, format, or relationship. It adds nothing to the schema's minimal details.

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 merely restates the tool name and title ('PartMe Blender Harness command `recipe.procedural_courtyard`') without stating what the tool does. It fails to mention that it generates a procedural courtyard or any verb/resource. This is a tautology that adds no functional clarity.

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 is provided on when to use this recipe versus alternatives like blender_recipe_update_procedural_courtyard or other recipe tools. The only statement about requirements ('Per-request argument checks and session policy still apply') addresses prerequisites, not selection criteria.

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