Create mesh warp

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses exactly what the tool creates: 'a Geometry COMP holding a grid...' 'Creates a new baseCOMP under `parent_path`', 'output is a Null ready for setup_output; exposes a Zoom knob.' It also explains the internal node structure and the return payload (summary + JSON block with paths, errors, warnings, preview). This goes far beyond the annotations, giving a complete picture of side effects and results.

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 dense paragraph but is front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence adds value, covering the workflow, node structure, output, and return values. It is appropriately sized for a complex tool, though it could be broken into bullets for quicker scanning. Still, it's efficient without fluff.

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 creation tool with no output schema, so the description must cover return values and side effects thoroughly. It does: it mentions the created baseCOMP, specific node types, output Null, exposed Zoom knob, and a detailed JSON return block including container path, node paths, output path, controls, errors, warnings, and preview image. This is comprehensive for the tool's complexity.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add much new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; it mentions parent_path and Zoom knob, which are already described in the schema. It provides some context (e.g., warp types map to shapes) but doesn't compensate beyond baseline given the schema already documents parameters thoroughly.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Map a source TOP onto a curved or irregular surface via a deformable textured grid.' It clearly differentiates from sibling create_projection_mapping by calling itself the 'curved-surface upgrade' for domes, columns, and sculptures. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from flat projection mapping.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'the curved-surface upgrade to create_projection_mapping's flat corner-pin, for domes, columns, and sculptures.' This names an alternative tool and the condition for choosing this one (curved/irregular surfaces vs. flat). It also implies the alternative by contrast, giving clear usage context.

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