mesh_grading_two_sided

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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: returned node positions and normalized extrusion heights are exact planning data, no native mesh is changed or certified, and odd counts require symmetric wall inputs with one center cell. It does not cover auth or rate-limit behavior, but its added planning-vs-mutation clarification is valuable.

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 tightly packed and front-loaded: it begins with the core action, then covers fit modes, edge-case geometry, and return semantics in four short sentences. There is no observable filler.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values need not be fully explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, with zero schema descriptions across seven parameters, the description should carry more parameter-level meaning than it does; it partially compensates by explaining fit modes and odd-count constraints, but important inputs remain opaque.

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%, and the tool has seven parameters. The description hints at the fit modes and symmetric wall-input requirement for odd counts, but it does not map meanings to growth_ratio, opposite_growth_ratio, opposite_first_cell_height, length, cells, or first_cell_height, leaving most parameter semantics undocumented.

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 states a specific action and target: planning ordered wall-to-wall cell heights over a fixed length. It is clear enough to distinguish from generic mesh operations, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling mesh_grading_calculate or other mesh planning tools.

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 explains the behavior of the fit modes (default, strict, adjust_first_height), which implies when each mode is appropriate. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools such as mesh_grading_calculate or mesh_layer_plan.

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