separate_by_material

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Separate a mesh object into parts' but does not state whether this is destructive, what happens to the original object, whether the object must be selected, or what the scene result will be. For a mutating operation this is a significant gap.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and has zero filler. The single parameter is explained in a compact, readable Args block. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a mutating operation, the description is too thin. It omits important operational context such as whether the original object is deleted or kept, whether parts become separate objects, and how this tool relates to separate_by_loose. An agent has enough to guess the intent but not enough to predict the tool's full effect.

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. The Args line explains that object_name is 'Object to separate', which adds a little meaning beyond the schema title 'Object Name', but it does not clarify that it must be a mesh object, that it must have material assignments, or how the name is resolved. The compensation is minimal.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Separate a mesh object into parts by material assignment.' It clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from the sibling separate_by_loose by specifying the separation criterion.

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 phrase 'by material assignment' implies when to use it, but the description never explicitly says when not to use it or names alternatives such as separate_by_loose. Usage context is implied rather than stated, leaving the agent to infer the right choice from the sibling list.

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