split_mesh_to_fit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavior: it opens an inline 3D stage, oversized meshes are decimated for that stage, and it is quota-limited to 3 splits/month on free tier. It does not say whether the source mesh is preserved or consumed, what files/plates are produced, or that joints are added by default.

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 core purpose and the sibling contrast are correctly front-loaded, but the INLINE 3D STAGE paragraph restates what the first paragraph already said about the stage opening and hosted browser links, which is pure repetition. The pricing/upgrade block is also promotional rather than operational.

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?

For a 22-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema mutation tool, the definition covers purpose, the main alternative, quota and stage behavior, but leaves out what the tool actually returns (piece files, plate arrangement, a reassembly plan) and any guidance on the 21 optional parameters. Adequate, not 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?

Schema coverage is 91%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds only indirect hints ("pieces that reassemble" implying joint parameters, functional-part reasoning implying structural/hardware flags) and never explains cut_axis, max_pieces, or cut_positions_mm.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — cut ONE solid into printable pieces that reassemble — and immediately contrasts it with the sibling scale_mesh_to_fit, explaining the tradeoff (shrinks vs. keeps real dimensions). An agent can distinguish this from split_mesh_by_component or scale_mesh_to_fit without opening any schema.

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 framing "the other honest answer to 'it doesn't fit'" plus the explicit scale_mesh_to_fit contrast gives clear selection criteria for the main decision. It stops short of naming other partition-adjacent siblings (split_mesh_by_component, plan_assembly_split, verify_mesh_fit) or stating when to avoid cutting.

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