mesh.tris_to_quads

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 fails to disclose whether the mesh is modified in-place, what happens if no triangles are selected, how the thresholds affect the conversion, or if it is destructive. The description is insufficient for a mesh editing tool.

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 very concise (4 words) but at the expense of necessary information. It is appropriately front-loaded but under-specified for a tool with 3 parameters.

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 description omits critical context: operation scope (active object, selection), mode requirements, effect of thresholds, and return value. With no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description is inadequate for reliable invocation.

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%, yet the description does not mention any parameters. The schema titles are minimal ('Face angle in degrees', 'Shape angle in degrees') and the description adds no value. The agent has no explanation of how thresholds control the conversion.

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 'Convert selected triangles to quads' uses a specific verb-resource pair that clearly states the tool's purpose. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling mesh.quads_to_tris, which does the inverse operation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., required selection or mode), and no exclusions. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and context.

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