start_mesh_reload

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two important traits — the operation is asynchronous (implying a job handle must be polled via get_mesh_reload_job) and it takes a backup before reloading — which is genuine value. It omits what happens on confirm=false, whether the backup is destructive/overwriting, and what happens to current in-memory state during reload.

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 tight sentence with the gating condition placed at the end — no waste, but the extreme brevity is under-specification rather than disciplined concision for a 9-parameter mutation tool.

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 not be explained. But for a destructive 9-parameter operation with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description leaves too much unstated: required sequencing with plan_mesh_reload, semantics of confirm=false, and the meaning of six of the nine parameters.

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 9 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. 'Back up' loosely gestures at backup_mode/backup_path/overwrite_backup and 'explicit confirmation' at confirm, but mesh_settings, import_cameras, preserve_strokes, auto_unwrap_settings, and mesh_file_path are entirely unexplained.

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?

Names a specific compound action (back up + asynchronously reload) on a specific resource (mesh), plus the gating condition (explicit confirmation). It does not distinguish itself from the sibling trio plan_mesh_reload and get_mesh_reload_job, so an agent cannot tell where this sits in the plan/start/poll sequence from the description alone.

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?

'after explicit confirmation' implies a prerequisite, but nothing says whether plan_mesh_reload must be called first, or when to prefer this over that sibling. Given three mesh-reload siblings, the absence of any routing guidance is a real gap.

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