plan_mesh_reload

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It does disclose that the tool validates and previews impact rather than performing the reload, which is useful behavioral context. However, it leaves open whether backup_path means files are actually written, whether the operation has side effects, or what permissions are needed — important ambiguities for a tool with an overwrite_backup parameter.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though brevity here comes partly at the cost of the missing usage and parameter detail rather than from disciplined editing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, but for an 8-parameter planning tool with zero schema coverage the description is far too thin. An agent cannot predict what the preview contains, whether the call has side effects, or what the non-required settings parameters do.

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% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely doesn't. 'Texture-set and backup impact' loosely hints at backup_mode/backup_path, but mesh_settings, auto_unwrap_settings, import_cameras, preserve_strokes, and overwrite_backup receive no explanation anywhere.

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 specific verbs ('validate', 'preview') and resources ('mesh reload', 'texture-set and backup impact'), which clearly delineates it from the execution sibling start_mesh_reload. It stops short of naming the sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the plan-vs-execute distinction from naming conventions.

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 'plan_/preview' framing implies this should be called before start_mesh_reload, but the description never states when to use it, when to skip it, or that start_mesh_reload is the follow-up action. Usage is inferred from the tool name rather than stated.

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