convert_part_to_point_mass

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that only unsuppressed bodies are affected, that conversion is 'combined' into a single point mass, that a Named Selection is created as a side effect, and that no ACT extensions are needed. However, it omits whether the original bodies are removed/replaced, whether the operation is reversible, and whether permissions are required.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences carry the core behavior, and the trailing Args line is compact. The Args line is partly redundant with the schema, which slightly dilutes the conciseness.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description covers what happens at a high level, but for a non-annotated mutation tool it leaves key gaps: the fate of the original bodies, reversibility, and the meaning of proximity_multiplier.

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 the description must compensate, but it only restates the argument names and the default already present in the schema. It never explains what part_name identifies (a named Part in the model tree?) or what proximity_multiplier actually controls (search radius for the nearest structural surface).

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 ('Convert all unsuppressed bodies inside a named Part to a combined Point Mass') plus a secondary effect (creating a Named Selection). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling convert_prefix_to_point_mass, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 mechanics but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and notably never addresses the nearly identical sibling convert_prefix_to_point_mass. There is no prerequisite, exclusion, or context statement.

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