simplify_mesh

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and idempotency=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds the algorithm (QEM) and target semantics but does not disclose what happens to the original mesh, whether the change is reversible, or any permission requirements beyond what annotations imply.

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?

Front-loads the action in one line, then a compact structured returns block. Every element earns its place; the returns disclosure is valuable given no output schema exists. Slightly terse on context but not padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the full return shape (before/after counts, simplified flag), and annotations carry the destructive/safety profile. The remaining gap is the absence of alternative-tool guidance, but for a well-scoped mesh transform the definition is largely complete.

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% and both parameters are self-documented (actor label, target count with > 0 constraint). The description only restates 'to a target triangle count' with no added syntax, valid range, or interaction detail, so 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 (QEM-simplify), a specific resource (a DynamicMeshActor's dynamic mesh) and the target outcome (a target triangle count). Naming the QEM algorithm distinguishes it from sibling remeshers like apply_adaptive_remesh and apply_uniform_remesh.

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?

Usage is only implied by the purpose: reduce a mesh to a specific triangle target. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to the many competing remesh siblings (apply_adaptive_remesh, apply_uniform_remesh, scale_dynamic_mesh). No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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