Convert a named curve object into a mesh for editing, rendering, or export. Specify an optional name for the new mesh object.
Convert a curve object to a mesh.
Args: curve_name: Curve to convert. name: Name for the new mesh. Empty = auto.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| curve_name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that a new mesh is created (via 'Name for the new mesh'), but does not clarify whether the original curve is preserved, deleted, or hidden, nor what happens on invalid input. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.
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 extremely concise: a single clear purpose sentence plus a minimal Args block. No wasted words, and the most important information is 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?
The tool is simple, but the description lacks clarity on whether conversion is in-place or creates a new object, and does not specify return behavior or prerequisites. Given no annotations and no output schema, a bit more context would make it complete.
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 0%, so the parameter section is essential. The description explains curve_name as 'Curve to convert' and name as 'Name for the new mesh. Empty = auto', adding practical meaning beyond the bare 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: 'Convert a curve object to a mesh.' This clearly identifies the tool's function and differentiates it from more generic conversion tools like convert_object, though it does not explicitly name that sibling.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as convert_object, nor any prerequisites, exclusions, or expected context. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and brief description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.