blender_validate_mesh_quality

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It transparently describes the output behavior (score range 0-1, per-check results, blocking issues) and 'audit' implies a non-destructive read operation, but it never explicitly confirms that the mesh is not modified or that the tool only diagnoses rather than fixes issues.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences with zero filler: the action leads, followed by a compact enumeration of return values. Every clause earns its place, and the description is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

With no output schema present, describing the return shape is a useful and necessary substitution. Still, for a 2-parameter tool with no annotations, the description omits read-only confirmation and any routing guidance among the many sibling validation/mesh-analysis tools, leaving a moderate but not severe gap.

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 schema already documents object_name and the checks parameter, including the default-all-checks behavior and the full enum of check types. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond 'comprehensive audit', matching the baseline of 3 for high schema 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Run a comprehensive mesh quality audit') and clearly enumerates the return values: an overall score, per-check pass/fail results, and blocking issues. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like blender_msfs_validate_for_export or blender_ai_mesh_stats, so it stops short of a 5.

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 'blocking issues that would prevent clean export' phrasing implies a pre-export quality gate, which gives some contextual usage signal. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as blender_msfs_validate_for_export, blender_ai_mesh_stats, or blender_ai_fix_mesh_issues, leaving tool selection to inference.

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