blender_object_separate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining side effects, but it only states the operation and the modes. It does not disclose whether the original object is replaced by new pieces, whether SELECTED requires edit-mode selection, or whether the operation is destructive.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the action and enumerates the key modes without filler. It is as concise as possible for the information it provides.

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 tool has no output schema or annotations and performs a potentially irreversible mesh/object restructuring, yet the description does not explain default behavior when mode is omitted, what happens to the original object, or what input context is required. This leaves an agent without enough information to use the tool safely.

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 already describes both name and mode and fully documents the mode enum, so the description adds little parameter-level meaning. It essentially restates the enum values in prose, which provides baseline coverage.

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 'Separate' with the object as the target and enumerates the three modes (loose parts, materials, selection), so an agent knows what action this tool performs. It does not distinguish this tool from the closely named sibling blender_mesh_separate_selected, so sibling differentiation is incomplete.

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 guidance is given about when to choose this tool over alternatives like blender_mesh_separate_selected, nor about prerequisites such as needing an active selection for SELECTED mode or whether the object must be a mesh. The intended usage must be inferred from the name and enum values.

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