apply_mesh_morphology

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 real value beyond that by stating the mesh is REPLACED with an SDF-based offset approximation, warning the agent that geometry is overwritten and results are approximate. It stops short of noting whether the source mesh can be recovered.

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?

Core action is front-loaded, followed by the replacement behavior and a compact return-value list. Every sentence earns its place, though the Returns line is slightly schema-like rather than prose.

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, but the description enumerates the return fields (triangle_count, triangle_count_before, vertex_count, morphed), compensating well. Combined with the safety annotations and full parameter coverage, the only real gap is the absence of when-to-use guidance versus sibling mesh ops.

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 all three parameters (actor_name, operation, distance) are already documented, including the positive-float constraint and the operation enum values. The description restates the operation list but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 (Apply), resource (SDF-based morphology op), the operation set (dilate/contract/close/open), and the precise target (DynamicMeshActor's dynamic mesh). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like apply_mesh_boolean, apply_uniform_remesh, apply_adaptive_remesh, and apply_mesh_solidify.

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 prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives despite many overlapping mesh-modification siblings (apply_uniform_remesh, apply_mesh_solidify, apply_adaptive_remesh). The agent must infer selection purely from the operation names.

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