VNyan blendshapes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is 'live' and 'read+write', and that overrides take priority over tracking. It also notes the mechanism matches BlendshapeNode, adding useful context not present in the schema. This is more than minimal and provides the agent with key behavioral expectations.

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 two sentences with no fluff. The main function is front-loaded, followed by a brief source note. Every phrase earns its place, and the structure is easy to scan.

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?

The tool has six actions and two modes, but the description only summarizes reading and override setting/clearing. It does not explain the distinction between regular and mesh overrides, nor the return format of list/get. While the action enum provides names, the lack of detail on behavioral differences and outputs leaves some gaps for a tool of this 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?

The schema already documents all parameters with 100% coverage, including an exceptionally detailed description of the 'value' parameter (raw scale, not clamped, removal on 0). The description itself does not repeat parameter details, which is appropriate. Baseline of 3 is justified since the schema does the heavy lifting and no additional semantic clarification is needed.

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 it reads live blendshape values and sets/clears overrides that take priority over tracking, with a specific verb and resource. It also references the Blendshape node, establishing a known mechanism and distinguishing it from other avatar tools. The wording is specific and not a tautology.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: for live blendshape reads and override management. It references the Blendshape node, which implies a standard usage model. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, though the resource specificity makes the intended use fairly obvious.

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