apply_adaptive_remesh

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by enumerating the returned result (before/after triangle counts, remeshed flag), letting an agent verify the mutation, but it does not say what happens to existing geometry/LODs, whether the operation replaces or mutates in place, or whether a weight map failure silently falls back.

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?

One front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a compact return signature; little wasted language. The inline return block is verbose but substitutes for the absent output schema, so it earns its space.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by spelling out the full return object. Given a destructive mesh operation with 100% parameter coverage and clear annotations, the definition is largely self-sufficient; only usage routing and in-place vs replace semantics are missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters in detail, including the notable caveat that min_edge_length is echoed but not consulted. The description names only target edge length and weight map, adding no semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Adaptive-remesh') and resource ('a DynamicMeshActor's dynamic mesh'), plus the two distinguishing inputs (target edge length, optional weight map). The word 'adaptive' implicitly separates it from the sibling apply_uniform_remesh and from simplify_mesh, so an agent can distinguish intent without opening schemas.

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 never says when to prefer this over alternatives such as apply_uniform_remesh or simplify_mesh, nor does it state prerequisites (e.g., the actor must already exist and hold a dynamic mesh). Usage is only inferable from the tool name and the mention of weight-map density control.

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