retopo.project

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

The annotations already provide the basic read-only/destructive hints, and the description adds only generic operational metadata ('Risk: standard; maturity: L1'). This does not disclose what changes the tool makes, whether it mutates objects, which objects it affects, or what the output or side effects are. The 'requirements' sentence is not behavioral 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?

It is short, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficient, dense explanation. The text mostly repeats the command name and provides standard metadata that does not help an agent understand or invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Despite having an output schema, this tool has eight parameters, a nested object, and an ambiguous operation name, yet the description does not clarify the core action or parameter relationships. It is materially incomplete for a tool that appears to be performing a retopology project operation in Blender.

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 only 50%, and the description contributes nothing to the semantics of important parameters such as objectId, sourceObjectId, method, or maxDistance. The parameters are effectively left undocumented beyond their raw JSON schema types, and the description fails to compensate for the missing coverage.

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 only states that this is a PartMe Blender Harness command named `retopo.project` and gives risk/maturity metadata; it never states what the tool does, which resource it operates on, or what action it performs. This is effectively a tautology that restates the command name without adding semantic content.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternatives are mentioned despite closely related sibling tools like blender_retopo_setup_surface, blender_retopo_transfer_layers, and blender_retopo_validate. The only usage-adjacent text is a generic statement that argument checks and session policy still apply, which does not help select this tool over alternatives.

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