fix_normals

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds a UI requirement, which is useful behavioral context not present in annotations. However, it does not elaborate on side effects beyond the destructive flag.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the main action, with no redundant words. The parenthetical 'memerlukan UI' is a concise, relevant addition.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter, output schema present, and annotations available. The description gives the core purpose and a UI requirement, but lacks parameter clarification and usage guidance. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the 'obj_name' parameter at all. While the parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation and provides no additional meaning about what should be passed.

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 uses a specific verb 'Hitung ulang' (recalculate) and a clear resource 'normal mesh' (mesh normals), stating the exact operation and its goal of consistency. It distinguishes from sibling tools like mesh_analysis by pinpointing the normal-recalculation action.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only extra note, 'memerlukan UI' (requires UI), is a prerequisite rather than a usage context. There are no mentions of alternatives, exclusions, or specific scenarios.

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