Separate Mesh

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

Annotations are all false, providing no hints about safety. The description does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, if it modifies the original mesh or creates new ones, or any other behavioral traits. For a geometry modification tool, this is insufficient.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It is concise, though perhaps too minimal for a modeling tool.

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?

Despite a simple parameter set and output schema, the description lacks behavioral details such as whether separation is by shell or by component, and what happens to the original mesh. Sibling tools like modeling.combine suggest an inverse operation, but no comparisons are made.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear description of the 'mesh' parameter. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 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 clearly states 'Separate a combined mesh into individual meshes', using a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like modeling.combine.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when the mesh is not a combined mesh or differences from other modeling tools. Prerequisites or exclusions are absent.

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