blender_validate

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description discloses important behavioral details: per-face issue lists are capped at 10 exemplars unless verbose=True, and verbose output can be very large on dense meshes. This adds value that the annotations do not convey, with no contradictions.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by replacement info, usage example, and a note on output truncation. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool's complexity (7 parameters, output schema present, rich annotations), the description covers the main usage patterns, replacement behavior, and output size caveat. It falls slightly short by not explicitly defining the numeric thresholds, but the output schema and intuitive parameter names partially fill that gap.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain parameters. It does explain the 'checks' enum, 'verbose' behavior, and 'clearance_partners' purpose. However, it leaves the numeric parameters (min_wall_mm, overhang_angle, min_clearance_mm) without explicit ties to the checks or units, though their names are somewhat self-explanatory.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource: 'Run specified printability checks on a mesh.' It then enumerates the exact valid check values and explicitly states it replaces individual mesh_health, overhang, and thin_wall checks, distinguishing it from sibling validation tools.

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?

It gives explicit usage context: 'Use checks=["ALL"] to run the full printability suite before STL export' and explains how to check clearance against named neighbors via clearance_partners. It also notes it replaces individual checks, but does not draw exclusions against sibling tools like scad_validate_printability or blender_check_intersection.

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