retopo.setup_surface

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

It adds only vague metadata such as 'Risk: standard' and 'maturity: L1,' but does not state what the operation does to the scene, whether it mutates the source mesh, or what side effects to expect. With annotations declaring readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description should clarify the actual behavior; it does not.

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 short but the brevity is due to under-specification, not efficient communication. Every sentence is either boilerplate or a restatement of the command name, leaving the reader without functional information.

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 tool with eight parameters, nested objects, and related retopology siblings, the description provides essentially no contextual or operational completeness. An agent cannot determine the tool's function, its inputs' roles, or when to invoke it.

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-level explanations at all, so it adds no meaning over the input schema. Given schema coverage of only 63%, the description should compensate for underdocumented parameters like targetName and sourceObjectId, but it does not.

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's identifier as 'PartMe Blender Harness command `retopo.setup_surface`' and provides no actual statement of what the tool does. It does not name a specific verb, resource, or outcome, and it does not distinguish this tool from sibling retopology tools like blender_retopo_project or blender_retopo_validate.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool or when to prefer an alternative. The description only mentions risk, maturity, and security-policy requirements, which are operational notes rather than usage direction.

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