tris_to_quads

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses partial-success behavior (not all triangles can be merged) and that it returns a confirmation dict, but omits what happens on failure, whether the operation is undoable, and any permission/mode requirements.

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?

Front-loaded with the core operation, then rationale, then caveats, then params. Well structured and mostly waste-free, though the Args/Returns scaffolding is slightly more verbose than needed given an output schema exists.

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 topology-mutating tool with two params, an output schema covering returns, and no annotations, the description supplies enough to call it correctly: purpose, applicability caveat, and both parameter meanings. Behavior under failure conditions is the only notable omission.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it documents object_name as the target mesh and explains the selection enum values ('ALL' vs 'CURRENT'), their default, and the prerequisite of selecting first. Minor gap: no note on whether object_name accepts an exact name or a reference.

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?

States a specific verb ('convert') and resource ('adjacent triangle pairs to quad faces'), with an explicit scope qualifier ('where possible'). This clearly distinguishes it from the inverse sibling quads_to_tris.

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?

Explains the purpose context (improves topology for subdivision and deformation) and gives a concrete precondition: only adjacent pairs with compatible angles merge, so it is not universally applicable. It also instructs using select_* tools before 'CURRENT'. It stops short of naming sisters like quads_to_tris or repair_mesh as alternatives.

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