split_mesh_by_component

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

The description includes useful behavioral details beyond the schema, such as the connected-component analysis mechanism, default output location, and the return value structure (dict with count and file paths). It also transparently notes the 3D stage integration and fallback behavior for hosts without MCP Apps panel support. However, it does not mention side effects like file overwriting or cleanup of the original file.

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 somewhat front-loaded with the main action in the first sentencevie, but then provides technical details (connected-component analysis, 3D stage) that may be less critical for an agent. The inline parameter documentation is helpful but could be more concise.

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 covers the function, parameters, return value, and a dependency (3D stage support). It is generally complete for a file-splitting utility. It could mention error cases (e.g., file without multiple components) or edge cases (non-STL formats), but overall gives an agent enough to proceed.

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 explains 'file_path' as the path to the mesh file, but does not mention supported formats (e.g., .stl, .obj) or file size limits. 'output_dir' is explained with a default behavior ('input directory'). Schema coverage is 0% so these explanations are valuable, but parameter details beyond 'output directory' are thin.

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 uses a specific verb ('Split') and clearly identifies the resource ('a multi-component mesh') and the outcome ('into separate STL files'). It also explains the mechanism ('identifies disconnected bodies via connected-component analysis'), which provides clear functional understanding and differentiates it from vague sibling tools like 'merge_stl' or 'arrange_parts_on_plate'.

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 explains what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. There is no mention of alternatives like 'merge_stl' or 'extract_plate_object'. The context is implied (when you need separate files per component) but not explicitly stated.

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