join_objects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure. It mentions the active object but does not state whether the original objects are deleted, whether only mesh objects are supported, or any other side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool that modifies the scene structure.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary action. It includes the necessary parameter documentation in a compact format without any redundant information. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 tool, the description covers the basic purpose and parameter, but it omits critical context such as whether original objects are removed, whether only mesh objects are eligible, and any potential side effects on the scene. Given no output schema or annotations, this leaves the agent with insufficient information to safely invoke the tool.

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 provides no description for the 'names' parameter, so the description adds value by explaining that it is a list of object names and that the first becomes active. However, it does not clarify ordering constraints beyond that or explain what 'active' implies for the resulting mesh, leaving some semantic ambiguity.

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 verb 'Join' and the resource 'multiple objects into a single mesh', which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like merge_vertices or boolean_operation. It also adds the detail about the first object becoming active, which is a precise behavioral note.

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 provides the clear context that this tool is for combining multiple objects into one mesh, but it does not mention when to prefer this over alternatives like boolean_operation or separate_by_material, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites. The usage is implied rather than explicit.

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