cure_model

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

The description discloses concrete behaviors: bakes transforms so scale becomes 1,1,1, removes duplicate vertices via bmesh remove_doubles, and recalculates outside normals. This goes well beyond the sparse annotations and explains why these operations fix Godot skinning/collision. No contradiction with destructiveHint=false, since it describes mesh-level curing rather than deleting scene objects.

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?

Well-structured with a concise summary line, three scannable bullets, and a final usage line. Every sentence adds value and there is no filler or repetition.

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?

The description covers what the tool does, why it is useful before Godot export, and when to use it versus auto-curing during export. Remaining minor omissions are explicit required-name semantics and a direct mention of cure_scene for whole-scene curing, but the single-mesh framing largely covers this.

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 semantic burden. It maps parameter groups to bmesh concepts: apply_scale/apply_location/apply_rotation to Apply Transforms, merge_distance to remove_doubles, and recalc_outside to recalc_face_normals. The one gap is that the required 'name' parameter is not explicitly described as identifying the target mesh object.

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 'Cure a single mesh before Godot export' and enumerates three concrete operations: apply transforms, merge vertices by distance, and recalc normals. This clearly distinguishes it from scene-level siblings like cure_scene and positions it relative to godot_export_glb.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use before godot_export_glb or let godot_export_glb auto-cure', giving a clear when-to-use and an alternative. It could more explicitly contrast with cure_scene, but the single-mesh framing supplies enough context.

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