slice_procedural_mesh

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds value on top by spelling out the concrete consequence of a second call and by documenting the return payload, which is important because there is no output schema. It does not mention failure modes or permission requirements, hence not a 5.

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?

Three compact passages: the operation, the non-idempotency warning, then the return shape. The mutation caveat and the return contract are front-loaded where an agent will read them, and there is no filler. Slightly dense but every sentence earns its place.

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 7-parameter destructive mesh tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing return contract ({ actor_label, sliced, total_sections, other_half_created, ... }) and the non-idempotent mutation behavior, which together with schema-documented defaults and destructive annotations covers everything an agent needs to call it correctly.

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% across all 7 parameters (plane_normal, plane_position, cap_option enum-like values, component_index default, etc.), so the schema carries the semantics. The description only alludes to the plane and to create_other_half generically, adding no syntax or default 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Slice a procedural mesh'), states the mechanism ('in place with a plane') and the scope of the mutation ('optionally spawning the other half as a new PMC on the same actor'). It is clearly distinguishable from destroy-style siblings, but it never names an alternative such as slice_fracture or plane_cut_fracture, so the sibling-differentiation bar for a 5 is not met.

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?

It gives explicit when-not guidance: 'NOT idempotent: mutates the mesh destructively; re-running slices the already-sliced result', which tells the agent not to call it repeatedly on the same actor. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating prerequisites (e.g. a valid actor_label / non-zero normal), so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not/alternatives coverage.

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