Auto fit mesh

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

The annotations only say readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, which tells the agent almost nothing about consequences. The description adds the crucial disclosure that any multi-mesh deck is reset to a single mesh, plus a warning glyph, which the annotations fail to convey. I read this as an expansion of behavior rather than a contradiction, since the reset alters mesh topology rather than deleting user objects, but the tension with destructiveHint=false is real.

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 core sentence is front-loaded and the warning plus alternative follow in the right order with no filler. The two bracketed [bulc-mcp] rule-ID lines are terse metadata that slightly clutter the definition, but they do point to bulc_knowledge_search for detail.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema tool this covers the essentials: what is recomputed, the destructive side effect, and the sibling to use instead. It stops short of stating prerequisites (e.g., behavior with no obstacles present) or the units/limits of the fit, which is the remaining gap.

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 100% and both margin parameters carry their own descriptions and defaults, so the baseline is 3. The description only alludes to 'plus margin' without explaining how margin_xy and margin_z differ or how they affect the fit, so it adds little beyond the schema.

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?

Specific verb+resource with scope: it fits the mesh domain to the obstacle bounding box and recomputes NI/NJ/NK while preserving cell size. This distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like set_meshes, auto_multimesh, and set_mesh_cell_size. An agent can tell what it does without opening the schema.

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?

It names explicit alternatives and the condition that selects them: use set_meshes / auto_multimesh to keep or build a multi-mesh deck. That is real routing guidance. It doesn't distinguish itself from auto_cutcell_mesh or slice_mesh/merge_meshes, so 4 rather than 5.

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