seed_part

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for explaining behavioral impact, but it only states the action without mentioning side effects, whether it modifies the model, or how seeding affects subsequent meshing steps. This is too thin for a mutating operation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the core action is immediately identifiable. It is concise, though arguably too sparse for the number of parameters involved.

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?

Given six parameters, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, the tool description leaves too much unsaid: required context, what output to expect, and how the optional factors affect behavior. Only the most basic purpose is conveyed.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only hints at 'size' and 'part_name' through 'part' and 'global element size'. The optional parameters timeout, model_name, min_size_factor, and deviation_factor are entirely unexplained.

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 a specific verb (seed) and resource (part) with a distinguishing qualifier (global element size), making the basic intent clear. However, it does not differentiate seed_part from sibling mesh-related tools like generate_mesh or set_mesh_control.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor is there any mention of required prerequisites like an existing part or expected workflow ordering before generate_mesh. An agent gets no contextual direction.

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