subdivide_faces

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation profile is known. The description adds real context beyond that: it clarifies the operation adds topology 'without changing the shape', which is a non-obvious behavioral trait. It does not mention reversibility/rollback, so not a full 5.

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-loads the core effect and the sibling differentiation before the dense parameter block, and every sentence carries information. The `where` explanation is necessarily long but tightly packed; slightly run-on but 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 3-parameter mesh-mutation tool with no output schema and no annotation detail, the description covers effect, alternatives, prerequisite, and the full selector vocabulary. The only gap is the required `object` argument and what the call returns/changes on the target, but overall it is sufficient to invoke correctly.

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%, so the description must carry the load and largely does: it defines `cuts` as cuts per edge, and fully documents the `where` selector keys (normal, angle default 25, x/y/z ranges, box, area, index, empty/null semantics). The required `object` parameter is only implied, not described, which keeps it from a 5.

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 effect ('split the picked faces into a grid') plus the intended downstream use ('to bend, sculpt or displace later'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tools subdivide and remesh. An agent can tell it apart from those without opening a 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 explicitly with the condition that selects them: 'Use subdivide to round the whole mesh, remesh for an even skin over merged parts.' It also prescribes a prerequisite workflow ('Look at mesh_info first to see where the faces are'), so when-to-use and what-to-do-before are both covered.

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