clean_mesh

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

Annotations already indicate destructive behavior, and the description adds specific context by naming what will be affected (double vertices and loose geometry). This goes beyond the generic destructive hint, though it doesn't mention side effects like changes to UVs or materials.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence with no extraneous words. It is efficiently front-loaded, though it omits useful details that could be added without much length.

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 destructive tool with three parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is too thin. It lacks parameter explanations and usage context, even though the output schema partially compensates for return value clarity.

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 0% and the description provides no explanation of the parameters (object_name, delete_loose, merge_distance). While parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description fails to add meaning or guide usage, which is a significant gap for a tool with defaults.

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 a specific action ('Hapus' = remove) on a specific resource ('vertex ganda + geometri lepas' = double vertices + loose geometry). It distinguishes this as a cleanup operation, though it does not explicitly differentiate from similar siblings like merge_by_distance.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like merge_by_distance and validate_geometry, the description offers no criteria for selection, leaving the agent without usage context.

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