join_objects

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description is consistent with that. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context beyond the annotation, such as whether original objects are removed, whether the operation is reversible, or any side effects. It relies entirely on the annotation for safety information.

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, front-loaded with the action, and contains no superfluous words. It achieves maximum conciseness, even though it under-specifies other aspects.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and destructive nature, the description is too sparse. It doesn't mention what happens to the original objects, whether the objects must be mesh type, or how the merge is performed. While an output schema exists to cover return values, the description fails to provide essential usage context for a destructive operation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description was expected to compensate by explaining the parameters, but it does not. It doesn't clarify that object_names is the list of mesh objects to merge or that new_name is the optional name for the merged result. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema property names already imply.

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 the tool's function: combining multiple mesh objects into one. The verb 'Gabungkan' (combine/join) is specific, and the resource and outcome are explicit. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like merge_by_distance (merges vertices) or boolean_operation (combines via boolean), as it focuses on joining whole objects.

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, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It only states the basic action, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the tool name and description alone.

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