mesh_convex_hull_quickhull

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add useful behavioral context: the computation is 'exact', input is 'unorganized' clouds, and it costs '0.030 USDC on Base L2'. However, it omits important behaviors such as output format, error handling, side effects, or any restrictions beyond payment, so it only partially reveals its 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?

The entire description is one sentence plus a parenthetical cost, front-loaded with the primary verb and resource. Every word adds value: the algorithm, input type, and target runtimes are all meaningful. There is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 the tool's complexity (arbitrary vertex clouds, multiple runtimes) and minimal schema (a generic 'payload' string with no structure), the description is not complete enough. It does not explain how to encode the vertex cloud in the payload, what the output format is, or any constraints/error conditions. An agent would struggle to invoke this correctly without additional documentation.

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 coverage is 100% for both parameters, providing the baseline of 3. The description adds a hint that the payload contains vertex clouds, which maps to the likely input, and includes the cost relevant to paymentSignature. It does not enrich the schema's meaning substantially beyond that.

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 states a specific verb ('Computes') and resource ('exact 3D convex collision hulls') with clear input ('arbitrary unorganized vertex clouds'), algorithm ('Quickhull'), and target runtimes ('Cannon.js, Rapier, and PhysX'). This differentiates it from siblings like calculate_bounding_box_3d or mesh_decimate_quadric_simplifier without needing the schema.

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 gives a clear context (physics engine runtimes) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it list exclusions or alternative tools. An agent can infer its use case, but the absence of explicit 'when not to use' or sibling comparisons leaves some ambiguity.

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