repair_mesh_advanced

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It details key behaviors: finding boundary edges, closing small holes via fan triangulation, and returns a dict with repair statistics. It also clarifies output behavior (default overwriting input). Could add more on potential side effects, but what's provided is sufficient.

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 (~100 words) with a clear structure: main purpose, usage hint, parameter list. The parameter descriptions are inline but not overly verbose. Slightly front-loaded but every sentence adds value. Could be more concise in parameter descriptions, but overall efficient.

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 no output schema, the description covers the return type (dict with stats). It addresses the main use case and differentiator from basic repair. It doesn't cover error conditions or prerequisites (e.g., file existence), but for a moderate-complexity tool with 3 parameters, it is largely complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning for all three parameters: file_path ('Path to the STL file'), output_path ('Output path. Defaults to overwriting the input'), and close_holes ('Whether to attempt closing holes (default True)'). It explains defaults and purpose, though it could elaborate on the consequences of disabling close_holes.

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 'Deep mesh repair: degenerate removal + hole closing + boundary edge fixes' and explicitly distinguishes from sibling 'repair_mesh' by saying it goes beyond basic repair. The verb 'repair' with the advanced modifier makes the purpose specific and distinguishes from other tools.

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 says 'Use when repair_mesh (basic) is not enough -- e.g. mesh has open holes or boundary edges.' This provides explicit when-to-use guidance and directly references a sibling alternative, making it easy for the agent to decide when to invoke this tool.

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