array

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the key behavioral trait that copies are merged into a single mesh, but it says nothing about whether the source object is consumed or preserved (the keep_source parameter defaults to false), nor about permissions or result format.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the operation, followed by a compact illustrative list. No filler; every clause adds 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?

For a 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core mechanics but omits keep_source semantics and the fate of the source object, which are exactly the details an agent needs before invoking.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate. It clarifies count (repetition number) and offset (world vector, step in metres), which is genuinely useful, but leaves object, name, and especially keep_source completely undefined.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: repeat an object count times along a world vector and merge copies into one mesh. The 'world vector offset' phrasing implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling radial_array (linear vs radial repetition), so an agent can pick correctly without opening schemas.

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 example list ('Fences, stairs, windows, planks, teeth') gives concrete when-to-use contexts, which is stronger than most tool descriptions. However, it offers no explicit when-not guidance or a named alternative (e.g. radial_array for circular patterns).

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