blender_ai_mesh_optimize

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It does list the four operations performed, which is a strong behavioral signal. However, it does not disclose whether the original mesh is mutated in place, whether existing UVs are overwritten, or whether decimation destroys original geometry detail.

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 two sentences with no filler: the first sentence names the pipeline and its stages, and the second gives the intended use case. Every word contributes to selection and invocation.

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 six-parameter wrapper tool, the schema fully documents parameters and the description covers purpose, so an agent can select it and set the right toggles. Missing details include side effects, return behavior, and explicit routing to individual step tools when only part of the pipeline is needed, which keeps it from being fully complete.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents all six parameters. The description adds only a high-level mapping of pipeline stages to the toggle parameters (cleanup, decimation, auto-UV, normal smoothing) without giving extra parameter-level semantics.

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 an active verb ('Run'), names the resource ('a mesh'), and enumerates the exact pipeline stages: cleanup, decimation, auto-UV, and normal smoothing. Calling it a 'convenience wrapper' and noting 'in one call' distinguishes it from the individual blender_ai_mesh_* step 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 provides useful context by calling it a 'Convenience wrapper for post-generation processing,' implying it is the one-call choice after generation. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer the individual cleanup/decimate/auto-UV tools instead, nor does it name any exclusions.

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