local_mesh_auto_reload

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the call mutates configuration and 'returns the previous settings for restoration.' This is a real addition not present in the destructive/openWorld hints. However, it omits persistence scope and what exactly the destructive aspect entails.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The mutation and its return value are stated efficiently.

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?

A destructive, mutating tool with no output schema and 0% parameter documentation needs more than two sentences. It says nothing about persistence, required auth, scope of the reload, or return shape, leaving significant gaps.

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 carries the full burden, but it never explains either parameter. 'enabled' is inferable from the tool name, but 'seconds' (presumably the polling interval) is left entirely undefined.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Set local mesh automatic reload') with a concrete effect ('so Blender exports can refresh in the viewer'). It is clearly distinguishable from read-only siblings like local_mesh_status, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no alternatives named. The agent learns what the tool does but nothing about when to prefer it over local_mesh_status or local_mesh_open.

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