remesh

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether remeshing is destructive, modifies the original mesh, affects UVs or materials, or requires specific prerequisites. The word 'remesh' implies a geometry change but not its consequences.

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 very concise and front-loaded, with no filler. However, it is so short that it omits useful details; it earns points for structure but loses some for being under-specified rather than merely compact.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are likely covered, but the description lacks essential operational context: prerequisites, whether the operation is destructive, performance implications, and clear parameter semantics. For a 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, this is a significant 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 0%, so the description must supply parameter meaning. It does add some meaning to 'mode' by naming VOXEL and QUAD, but it gives no semantics for 'object' or 'voxel_size' (units, scale, effect), leaving significant ambiguity.

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 the action ('Remesh') and the resource ('an object') clearly, and it names the two modes. It is distinguishable at a basic level from most siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with related mesh operations.

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?

There is no guidance about when to choose remeshing over alternatives, whether it applies to specific object types, or when to use VOXEL versus QUAD mode. The description only names the modes without any context for selecting between them.

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