Build LOD variants

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden, and it does well by disclosing the 202 {job_id} success response and the 409 lod_job_active concurrency failure. It could add side-effect or permission context, but the async spawn behavior and conflict condition are clearly surfaced.

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?

One dense sentence conveys the endpoint, success payload, error condition, and next step with no filler. The most important action and response are front-loaded.

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 one-parameter async job spawner with no output schema, the description covers the essential interaction: request shape, success response, conflict case, and polling instruction. The main gap is the undocumented scan_id parameter, which is simple enough that overall completeness remains high.

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?

The only parameter, scan_id, has 0% schema description coverage and the tool description never mentions it. Though the name is self-explanatory, the description does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation by clarifying what scan_id refers to or how it relates to the LOD job.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Spawn', and names the resource ('the LOD decimation job') plus the endpoint POST /lod, which clearly distinguishes the action from generic scene inspection tools. It does not explicitly compare itself to siblings like scene_lod, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 a clear workflow context: call this to launch the async job and then poll with workspace_job_wait. It does not state explicit when-not-to-use conditions or alternatives, but the 409 behavior implicitly warns against spawning while another job is active.

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