polynodes_cuboid_return_level

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

Annotations already declare idempotent, non-destructive, non-read-only, and open-world behavior. The description adds only the range and 'JSON confirmation,' both of which are already available via the schema and output schema, so it provides little extra behavioral context.

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 and front-loaded, but the Args and Returns boilerplate adds little and the whole description is under-specified rather than richly 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?

For a simple parameter setter with annotations and an output schema, the description gives enough to invoke the tool minimally. However, it does not explain what the cuboid FX return level affects or clarify the layer parameter beyond what the schema already states.

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 reported as 0% at the top level, and the description merely says params contains level and value. It does not explain the macro/meso/micro layer values or the meaning of value beyond the range already present in 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: set cuboid FX return level, and clarifies the scope as per layer with the valid range. It is clear enough to distinguish from most siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with related cuboid or FX tools.

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 only says what the tool does, not when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. No prerequisites, context, or sibling routing are provided.

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