ms_preset_swap

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It explains that the preset shares the referenced asset's graph topology, which is crucial. It also clarifies the overriding behaviour. However, it could mention if the referenced asset must exist or if the operation is non-destructive.

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 well-structured, front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence adds value. The parameter list is clean and directly follows the description.

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?

It is complete enough for an agent to use it, especially since an output schema exists. The only minor gap is the absence of details about the output asset or potential errors, but that is not critical.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides a clear meaning for each of the four parameters, including what the JSON object represents ('input_name -> value overrides'), going well beyond the schema.

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?

It states a specific verb and resource ('Create a preset variant'), explains what a preset shares and overrides, and provides a concrete use case ('weapon/surface/character variants'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like ms_convert_to_preset and ms_preset_morph.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use it ('create variants without duplicating the graph'), which implies when not to use it (full graph duplication), but it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or routing conditions.

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