repair_mesh

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is 'fast, safe', removes zero-area triangles, and defaults to overwriting the input file. This covers key behavioral aspects, though it could mention permissions or potential side effects.

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 purpose sentence, an alternative mention, a brief action list, a usage recommendation, and parameter docs. It is front-loaded with key information and contains no fluff.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, usage guidance, parameters, return value, and default behavior. It is complete for a simple repair tool, though it could mention any file size or complexity limitations.

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 includes clear documentation for both parameters: file_path is explained as 'Path to the STL file to repair' and output_path as 'Output path. Defaults to overwriting the input.' Since the schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), this adds essential meaning beyond the schema's type information.

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: 'Basic mesh repair: fix degenerate triangles and bad normals' and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'repair_mesh_advanced' which handles deeper repairs. This provides a specific verb and resource with clear differentiation.

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 recommends using this tool 'on meshes from AI generation providers before slicing' and points to 'repair_mesh_advanced' for deeper repair needs. This gives clear context for when to use and when to use an alternative.

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