mesh.recalc_normals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states 'Recalculate' and 'consistently' but does not disclose that the tool modifies mesh data, potentially overwriting custom normals, or that it is safe and non-destructive. The absence of details on side effects or prerequisites is a significant gap.

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 a single sentence, highly concise with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could benefit from an additional sentence to clarify the 'consistently' aspect. Front-loading is adequate.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and the tool's role as a mesh operation, the description lacks contextual completeness. It fails to specify what 'recalculate' entails (e.g., averaging face normals, shifting smooth shading), how the 'inside' parameter affects the result, or the tool's interaction with existing shading settings. More context is needed for an agent to understand the tool's full effect.

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?

The input schema provides titles and defaults for both parameters ('inside' and 'object'), which are self-explanatory. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. With schema coverage at 0%, the description could have elaborated on parameter effects, but the schema titles suffice for basic understanding.

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 uses the specific verb 'Recalculate' and resource 'mesh normals', clearly indicating the tool's function. It distinguishes from siblings like mesh.extrude or mesh.subdivide, as no other tool recalculates normals. However, the term 'consistently' is vague and could be more explicit.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. There is no mention of when to use this tool (e.g., after mesh edits that distort normals) or when not to use it (e.g., if custom normals are preserved). No alternatives are suggested, leaving the agent to infer context from the name alone.

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