retopo.transfer_layers

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, etc.). The description adds only boilerplate — "Risk: standard; maturity: L1" — which is marginal context rather than behavioral disclosure. It does not state what happens to existing layers, whether the source mesh is modified, or how the transfer affects the target. No contradiction with 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?

The description is lean at two sentences, but the first sentence merely restates the tool's own name, so it does not earn its place. The remaining content is terse but generic boilerplate that could apply to any harness command. Efficient in word count, yet the space is not used to convey substance.

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?

This is a complex tool — 7 parameters, 4 required, nested object locators, transaction plumbing (_transactionId), and an output schema — yet the description supplies no operational semantics. What are 'layers'? How do source and target relate? What does the transfer modify or overwrite? The output schema covers return values, but the meaning of the operation itself is entirely absent, making the description inadequate for correct invocation.

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 71% (5 of 7 params documented), which is below the 80% baseline of 3, so the description needed to compensate. It adds zero parameter meaning. The critical 'layers' parameter (an array of strings) has no schema description and no description here, and '_expectedSceneRevision' is similarly undocumented. Nothing explains what object locators look like or what 'transfer layers' semantically requires.

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 identifies the command as "PartMe Blender Harness command `retopo.transfer_layers`" but never states what the tool does. It restates the title and adds operational metadata (risk, maturity) without any verb describing the actual operation. The function — transferring retopo layers between source and target meshes — is only inferable from the name and parameters, not from the description.

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 whatsoever about when to use this tool. It does not name alternatives, describe scenarios, or distinguish itself from sibling retopo tools like blender_retopo_project, blender_retopo_setup_surface, or blender_retopo_validate. The 'Requirements' line mentions session policy but says nothing about selection criteria.

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