simulation.cloth

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. The description mentions 'Risk: standard; maturity: L3' which is some context, but it does not explain what the tool does, what it modifies, or what side effects might occur. No contradiction with annotations, but the description fails to add meaningful behavioral disclosure.

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 not informative. It front-loads the command name and generic risk/maturity metadata, which is not useful for an agent. The sentence about requirements is boilerplate and does not earn its place. It is under-specified rather than concise.

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 the tool has 11 parameters, no enums, and a low schema description coverage, the description is severely incomplete. An agent cannot determine what object the cloth simulation applies to, what the parameters mean, or what the output will be. The output schema exists but the description still needs to explain the tool's purpose and key parameters.

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 27%, and the description provides no parameter explanations. The schema has 11 parameters including mass, quality, frameStart, frameEnd, objectId, and modifierName, but the description does not clarify their roles or relationships. The description must compensate for the low schema coverage but 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 only restates the command name and title ('PartMe Blender Harness command `simulation.cloth`') without stating what the tool actually does. It does not mention cloth simulation, parameters, or behavior, so an agent cannot infer the tool's purpose from the description alone.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions generic 'requirements' about argument checks and session policy, which apply to all tools and do not help an agent decide between this and sibling simulation tools like simulation_rigid_body or simulation_soft_body.

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