combine

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses world-space merging, material retention, and that geometry is neither welded nor moved, but it omits the destructive default that source objects are deleted (delete_sources defaults to true) and says nothing about the resulting object's name/origin or reversibility.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler: the core operation comes first, then the motivation, then the boundary condition and alternative.

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, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the geometry semantics well but leaves the destructive source-deletion behavior and the output object's identity undocumented, which an agent needs before invoking it.

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% and the description never names or explains any of the three parameters. It implies a plural input ('several meshes') but leaves 'name' and especially the destructive 'delete_sources' default entirely unexplained.

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 (merge) and resource (meshes into one mesh object) and anchors it to a well-known Blender operation (Join/Ctrl+J), which disambiguates it from siblings like weld, attach, and parent.

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?

Gives a clear usage context (do it before export to save draw calls) and explicitly routes the agent to move_to_contact when the goal is closing a gap. It does not, however, say when *not* to combine (e.g. when separate objects are needed for rigging or per-part materials/animation).

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