entity_create_mesh

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: nonplanar faces are triangulated and smooth shading is supported, which tells the agent how geometry will be post-processed. It does not disclose parent/hierarchy side effects or coordinate-system behavior.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the triangulation and shading notes. No filler; each sentence adds information.

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?

For a tool with 11 parameters, nested parent objects, a required parent_id/path hierarchy, and no output schema, three sentences are thin. Key calling decisions (units, whether parent context is required, limits on vertex/face counts) are left unaddressed.

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 11 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It clarifies the two required inputs and the important 'zero-based' indexing convention plus smooth shading, but leaves tag, name, unit, origin, parent, parent_id, active_path, and model_id entirely undocumented in both places.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Create arbitrary grouped geometry from vertices and zero-based face indices') and names the geometric inputs, which cleanly separates it from entity_create_box and entity_create_cylinder. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings as alternatives, so it falls just below the top band.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus entity_extrude, entity_create_box, entity_create_cylinder, or entity_group. The agent must infer applicability entirely from the phrase 'arbitrary grouped geometry'.

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