Set Mesh

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation overwrites existing points, expands triangles into C4D's quad storage, requires point-count matching when polygons are omitted, and is wrapped in a single undo entry. This is strong behavioral disclosure, though it could mention failure behavior on count mismatch.

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?

Four tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by necessary behavioral detail. Every sentence carries useful information and there is no padding or repetition of schema content.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key requirements: what gets overwritten, the optional polygon behavior, the triangle expansion rule, topology constraints, and undo wrapping. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly without needing additional context.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by explaining triangle-to-quad storage conversion, the optionality of polygons, and the topology constraint when polygons are omitted. The 'handle' parameter is not elaborated beyond the schema's 'Target editable object,' but the other parameters gain real clarity.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Overwrite the points (and optionally polygons) of an editable object.' This clearly identifies the tool as a geometry-replacement operation and distinguishes it from nearby siblings like set_mesh_selection or get_mesh, which are about selecting or reading rather than rewriting mesh data.

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 clear operational guidance: it states when only points are rewritten, when polygons are optional, and the topology-match requirement. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the context ('editable object', 'overwrite') is clear enough for an agent to decide this is the wholesale mesh-replacement tool.

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