Separate a mesh into individual objects by splitting it into disconnected parts. Ideal for dividing complex geometry into distinct pieces for independent editing.
Separate a mesh into disconnected parts.
Args: object_name: Object to separate.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| object_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 full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and parameter, but does not reveal side effects (e.g., whether the original mesh is replaced, if new objects are created, or if the operation is destructive). It also does not mention any state requirements (e.g., selected object, edit mode). This is a significant gap for a mesh-modifying operation.
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, consisting of a single purpose sentence and a short Args block. It is front-loaded with the action, and the structure is clean. While it could include more detail, it is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter tool and avoids unnecessary verbosity.
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 absence of annotations and an output schema, the description is incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior. It does not explain what happens after separation (e.g., whether objects are renamed, selected, or if the tool returns a list). For a mutation tool, this level of context is insufficient, leaving the agent to guess about side effects and expected results.
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 description must compensate. It only restates the parameter name and a terse explanation ('Object to separate'), adding no additional detail about valid values, naming conventions, or constraints. It does not clarify whether the object must be a mesh or if the name refers to the object in the scene. The description adds minimal value beyond the 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 clearly states the operation: 'Separate a mesh into disconnected parts.' It specifies the verb (separate) and the resource (mesh), and distinguishes from the sibling 'separate_by_material' by focusing on disconnected parts rather than materials. This is precise and unambiguous.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like separate_by_material. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., must be in edit mode) or any contextual conditions. The name implies 'loose' but the description does not clarify when separation by loose parts is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.