repair_mesh_advanced

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The description discloses that it is a deprecated alias with identical behavior, mentions defaults for parameters, and describes the return type (dict with repair statistics). It also details the inline 3D stage behavior on success, including automatic decimation for oversized meshes. However, it doesn't disclose side effects like file overwriting by default (though output_path defaults to overwriting input, which is implied) or potential error behavior.

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 compact but includes essential information: the deprecation notice, the parameter list, and the behavior on success. The paragraph on the 3D stage is additional but relevant behavioral context. However, the restructured-text formatting (':param') is a bit dense and might be more readable as plain text. Overall, it avoids wasted words.

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 tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core use case (mesh repair with options), the deprecation status, the return type, and the notable side effect of opening the 3D stage. It doesn't explain the statistics dict structure but that may be unnecessary. The 3D stage behavior is a key context that is well-explained. A minor gap is the lack of error handling or edge cases, but it's adequately complete for an agent to use 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 description coverage is 0%, so all parameter semantics must come from the description. The description provides reasonable explanations for each parameter: file_path (path to STL file), output_path (output path, defaults to overwriting), close_holes (boolean, default True), weld_tolerance (weld radius in mm, with special values for auto and '0' disabling). This adds meaning beyond the schema, but some details like the format of the weld_tolerance string and the exact behavior of close_holes could be more explicit.

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 it is a deprecated alias for repair_mesh(close_holes=True) and explicitly directs new callers to the preferred tool. The purpose is clear (repair mesh files), and the description distinguishes it from its non-deprecated sibling repair_mesh by noting the identical behavior with a specific parameter set.

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 explicit guidance: existing callers can keep using it, but new callers should use repair_mesh with close_holes=True. This is clear guidance on when to use this tool vs. the alternative, though it doesn't elaborate on other alternative tools or broader usage context.

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