subdivide

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full load, and it does well: it discloses the core side effect ('apply=true bakes it into the mesh and sets smooth shading'), the multiplicative cost of levels, and a budget caveat about triangle count. It does not state reversibility, prerequisites (object selection/names), or what happens when apply=false.

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 compact sentences that are front-loaded with the operation, then the side effect, then the caveat, then the routing to alternatives. Every clause delivers distinct information with no restatement of the name or schema.

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 and no output schema, it covers operation, side effects, cost, and alternatives well. Remaining gaps are the meaning of 'names' and whether the bake can be undone, neither of which is recoverable from the structured fields.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate: it explains apply (bakes geometry, enables smooth shading) and conveys levels indirectly via 'each level quadruples the faces'. The required 'names' parameter is only implied by 'whole geometry', leaving its target semantics unstated.

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 ('Round the whole geometry with Catmull-Clark subdivision') and immediately differentiates from the two nearest siblings, subdivide_faces and remesh, by naming what each does instead. An agent can select this tool without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes: use subdivide_faces for a grid cut of picked faces without rounding, use remesh for an even skin over merged parts, implying this tool is for whole-object rounding. When-to-use and both alternatives are stated with the distinguishing condition.

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