remesh

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered, but the description goes further by specifying exactly what is destroyed — the old topology and UVs are lost — and by explaining the voxel_size/detail/triangle-count tradeoff, which the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the cost (detail vs triangles), then the destructive consequence, then alternatives — each sentence earns its place. Minor line-break fragmentation inside the first sentence is the only structural blemish.

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 destructive, output-schema-less mesh operation the description covers the essentials: what it produces, the resolution knob's tradeoff, what is irreversibly lost, and which siblings to prefer instead. Only the smooth_shading parameter remains unexplained.

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% for three parameters. The description explains voxel_size's effect on detail and triangle count, which is genuinely useful and beyond the bare schema, but it adds nothing about smooth_shading or the object parameter, leaving a third of the parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 and resource ('Replace the topology: rebuild the mesh as an even voxel surface that fuses overlapping parts into one skin') and distinguishes itself from sibling operations by naming subdivide and subdivide_faces as the topology-preserving alternatives.

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 use context ('for sculpting') and explicitly routes to alternatives when topology must be kept ('Use subdivide to round a mesh and keep its topology, subdivide_faces to add geometry to picked faces'). It does not state outright when remesh is the wrong choice, but the alternative routing covers the practical decision.

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