cure_scene

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

The annotations only provide destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It does this well by naming the actual mesh mutations: applying transforms, merging by distance, and recalculating normals. It also discloses the return shape. It could add an explicit warning that meshes are modified in-place, but there is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: it opens with the action and scope, then gives the operation breakdown, then the usage context, then the return value. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition of the title.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly includes the return shape: per-object reports and summary with cured_count and total_vertices_removed. It also supplies the Godot preprocessing context and the auto-cure alternative, making it complete enough for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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. It maps operations to parameter groups: 'apply transforms' covers apply_scale/apply_location/apply_rotation, 'merge by distance' maps to merge_distance, 'recalc normals' maps to recalc_outside, and 'selected' maps to only_selected. However, it does not explain only_meshes or the behavioral impact and defaults of individual parameters, leaving some semantics to be inferred from parameter names.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Cure every (or selected) mesh in the scene', then enumerates the exact operations (apply transforms, merge by distance, recalc normals). It also distinguishes itself from godot_export_glb by calling itself the explicit pre-export gate, making it clear what this tool does versus its siblings.

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 description explicitly tells the agent when to run this tool ('Run explicitly to inspect cure Report') and when to rely on an alternative ('rely on godot_export_glb auto-cure'). It also clarifies the selection condition via 'every (or selected) mesh', leaving little ambiguity about the intended invocation context.

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