sculpt_plan

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable operation. The description adds that the tool 'validates' an image and returns resources, but it does not disclose any deeper behavioral details (e.g., what 'validate' means, failure modes, or how the result should be consumed). This is acceptable but not rich.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action ('Validate a reference image') and then lists the output. There is no filler or redundancy, making it highly efficient for the agent to parse.

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 simple read-only tool with two string parameters and no output schema, the description gives a basic sense of purpose and expected results. However, it does not explain key terms like 'eight-pass sculpt order', 'technique-safe grimoire resources', or how to handle validation failures. Given the sibling tools, the agent may need more context to know if this is the right stage to call.

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 0% and the description only hints at one parameter ('reference image' implying referencePath). It does not explain 'intent' at all, and even the referencePath relationship is implicit. With two required parameters and no schema descriptions, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent guessing about parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the tool validates a reference image and returns a specific artifact (the locked eight-pass sculpt order plus grimoire resources). This goes beyond a tautology and gives a concrete outcome. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like sculpt_grimoire or sculpt_compare, which also involve validation or grimoire concepts.

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 implies this tool is for planning the sculpt order after validating a reference image, but it never states when to use this over alternatives like sculpt_spec_gate or sculpt_grimoire. There are no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' instructions, leaving the agent to infer the context from the tool name and outcome.

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