paint_faces

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the relative coordinate system and batch form. However, it does not mention whether painting overwrites existing data, if it requires existing textures, or any error cases. More behavioral details would improve transparency.

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: the first states the core functionality and key benefit (no UV math), the second provides use cases and usage forms. It is front-loaded with the most critical info and contains no redundant phrases. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no required, no output schema), the description covers the coordinate system, batch form, and use cases. It lacks information about return values or error handling, but for a painting tool, the essential usage is well explained.

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 main description adds context about relative coordinates and batch vs single forms, but these details are also present in the schema descriptions. The description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema already provides.

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 the tool paints features onto cube faces using relative coordinates, avoiding UV math. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'paint_texture' and 'set_cube_uv' by focusing on face-specific painting. The mention of use cases (eyes, nostrils, etc.) provides concrete examples.

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 lists use cases (eyes, nostrils, etc.) and implies it is for face-level painting rather than whole textures. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool. The context from sibling tools suggests alternatives like 'paint_texture' but the description lacks direct exclusions.

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