tri_to_quad

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning whether the operation is destructive, modifies in place, or requires selection. It does not clarify what happens to non-triangular faces or how the angle_limit influences the conversion. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 to the point, with a single action line and two parameter lines. It avoids unnecessary words and front-loads the purpose. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be more informative without becoming verbose.

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 mesh operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the tool's effect on the object, the role of angle_limit, or any side effects. An agent needs more context to use it correctly, such as whether it modifies the object in place and what constitutes a successful conversion.

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 description adds some meaning to both parameters: 'object_name' is described as 'Target object' and 'angle_limit' as 'Angle limit in radians.' This goes beyond the schema, which has no property descriptions. However, the explanation of angle_limit is minimal and does not specify its role (e.g., threshold for merging triangles). It adds value but leaves 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 states a clear action: 'Convert triangles to quads.' This is a specific verb and resource (mesh operation), and it distinguishes the tool from most siblings because it names the exact conversion. However, it does not explicitly mention that it operates on a mesh object or that it modifies the selected object, so it is not fully 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like limited_dissolve or merge_vertices. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., object must be a mesh with triangular faces) or conditions that favor this tool over others. The agent is left to infer the appropriate context.

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