remove_mesh_floating_regions

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses side effects (output_path defaults to overwriting input), explains the algorithm (identifies connected components and removes small ones), and states the return type (Dict with removal statistics).

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 description is concise and well-structured: a brief purpose statement, a rationale sentence, and a clear parameter list. There is no redundant or vague wording, and the formatting is easy to scan.

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?

The description is complete for a tool of this complexity: it explains what the tool does, why it's needed, how to control behavior via parameters, and the return type. Even without an output schema, the stated return of removal statistics is sufficient.

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?

The description adds meaningful explanations for each parameter beyond the schema: file_path as the STL path, output_path with overwrite default, keep_largest defaulting to true, and min_triangle_pct conditionally applied. All four schema parameters are covered in prose, enriching the schema's bare types and defaults.

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 description clearly states the tool's purpose: removing small disconnected components (floating geometry) from a mesh. The verb 'remove' is specific, and the explanation about support pillars and fragments distinguishes it from other mesh operations.

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 description provides a clear use case: cleaning up downloads and marketplace models with floating geometry. It implies when to use it, though it does not explicitly compare to alternative mesh-processing tools. The parameter descriptions further clarify usage conditions (e.g., keep_largest vs. min_triangle_pct).

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