build_organic_mesh

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

With no annotations at all, the description does disclose real behavior: it opens an interactive 3D stage, oversized meshes are auto-decimated, and non-panel hosts get a browser stage link. However it says nothing about whether the mesh is written to disk (the output_dir/output_path parameters imply file mutation), nor about failure modes or what happens on invalid recipes.

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?

The inline-3D-stage information is stated twice (in the opening sentence and again in the 'INLINE 3D STAGE' paragraph), and the 'MAKE DOORS' block is off-topic for this tool. The actual purpose statement is a single sentence buried ahead of 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 tool with 6 parameters, a required nested free-form object, no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves the core call contract and the return/preview behavior largely unexplained. It spends its length on host-panel plumbing instead of what an agent needs to invoke it 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 coverage is 67%, but the covered descriptions are vacuous ('Default: false.', 'Default: ""'), and the one required parameter, `recipe`, is a free-form nested object with additionalProperties:true and zero documentation. The description never explains the recipe shape, what `parts` toggles, or what reference_images are used for, so an agent cannot construct a valid call from it.

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?

The first sentence gives a specific verb and resource: 'Build a freeform/organic mesh from a smooth-blended primitive recipe'. It is reasonably distinguishable from parametric siblings like compose_part_from_primitives, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

The 'MAKE DOORS' paragraph talks about design_session not being installed and claims compile_scad is 'the make → preview → iterate loop', which redirects attention away from this tool rather than explaining when to call build_organic_mesh. No conditions for choosing it over compose_part_from_primitives, compose_models, or generate_model are given.

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