convert_prefix_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 the compound side effect (also creates a Named Selection of coplanar attachment faces) and the 'No ACT extensions required' constraint, but says nothing about reversibility, what happens to pre-existing point masses, or failure/error conditions for a mutating operation.

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?

Front-loaded with the core operation, followed by the resulting side effect, the ACT note, and a compact Args line. Efficient and well-ordered, though the trailing Args list partially restates the schema.

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, and the compound behavior is outlined. Still, for a two-step mutating tool with zero annotation and zero schema coverage, the vague 'nearest structural surface' logic and the unexplained second parameter leave the agent under-equipped.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It merely lists the argument names and the default 3.0, adding no meaning: 'proximity_multiplier' is left entirely unexplained (a multiplier of what, applied to which proximity?), leaving a cryptic parameter undocumented in both schema and description.

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 precise verb ('Convert') and a clearly scoped resource (unsuppressed bodies whose name starts with a prefix), plus the compound result (combined Point Mass + Named Selection). It is distinguishable from the similar sibling convert_part_to_point_mass by its prefix-based bulk scope, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The prefix-matching scope is stated, but nothing tells the agent when this batch tool should be chosen over convert_part_to_point_mass or the other point-mass siblings.

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