compact_mesh

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 structurally. The description usefully compensates for the absent output schema by spelling out the return shape (triangle_count, vertex_count, compacted). It stops short of the key behavioral consequence, though: compaction renumbers IDs, so previously captured vertex/triangle indices become stale — a critical fact for a mesh library where nearly every sibling addresses elements by ID.

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 lines, front-loaded with the action and target, with the return shape on its own line. No wasted words.

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?

For a one-parameter mutation tool whose annotations already carry the destructive flag, the description plus inline return shape is workable. It is still thin on the operational consequences of compaction — ID invalidation and the fact that 'compacted: false' is possible — which an agent needs before chaining follow-up mesh calls.

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?

Only one parameter (actor_name) and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already carries the semantics and the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about how the actor is identified or what happens if the name does not resolve to a DynamicMeshActor.

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 (compact) and resource (vertex and triangle ID lists on a DynamicMeshActor's dynamic mesh). The target object is unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from near-neighbours such as remove_unused_vertices or weld_mesh_edges, which an agent might reasonably confuse it with.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The reader must infer that compaction is a cleanup/optimization step, which is not stated anywhere.

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