subdivide

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds substantive behavior: shape morphing, per-level face quadrupling, that apply=true bakes the change and sets smooth shading, and a warning to watch triangle count against budget. It omits permission or reversibility notes, but the added context well exceeds the annotation baseline.

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 and its mechanism in the first clause. Every subsequent sentence carries distinct load: parameter behavior, a budgeting warning, and sibling routing. No filler.

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 tool with no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description covers effect, the apply/levels semantics, alternatives, and a poly-count caution. The gap is the undocumented 'names' argument and any note on how the output reports the triangle count it references.

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 carry all three parameters. It explains apply ('bakes it into the mesh and sets smooth shading') and gives levels real meaning ('each level quadruples the faces'), but 'names' is never addressed and levels' default/cost tradeoff is only implied, leaving partial compensation.

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 mesh with Catmull-Clark subdivision') and explains the resulting effect ('the shape changes, each level quadruples the faces'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the two nearest siblings, subdivide_faces and remesh, so an agent can route 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?

Names the alternatives and the conditions that select them: subdivide_faces for cutting picked faces into a grid 'without rounding', remesh for 'an even skin over merged parts'. Implicitly the use case for this tool is rounding the whole mesh, but it never states an explicit when-not-to-use condition, keeping it short of a 5.

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