create_mesh_3d

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the mesh is interactive (WebGL, orbit-able) and returns {filepath, title, rows}. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only or modifies state, or if there are side effects like file creation. It mentions returning a filepath but doesn't explicitly say it creates a file.

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 concise with three clear paragraphs: core functionality in first sentence, contrast with sibling, use cases, and return value. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the most important information.

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 complexity (11 parameters, 4 required) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the core functionality, use cases, and return type. However, it could mention that the data must contain x, y, z columns (already required by schema) or any prerequisites like the data format. The description is mostly complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context that the tool triangulates scattered points and distinguishes it from create_surface_3d. It explains the alphahull parameter's options (0=convex, >0=alpha, -1=Delaunay) but that is already in schema. It does not add new meaning to parameters like theme, title, filename, colorscale, face_color beyond what schema provides.

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 clearly states it creates an interactive 3D mesh from scattered points, specifies the triangulation method, and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool create_surface_3d which requires a regular grid. The verb 'creates' and resource '3D mesh' are explicit.

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 provides explicit use cases (irregular terrain point clouds, region bounding shapes, sparse 3D samples) and mentions when not to use it (vs create_surface_3d). However, it does not explicitly list when alternatives like create_scatter_3d or create_line_3d might be preferred.

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