set_mesh_element_size

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the setting is global rather than local, but says nothing about whether this invalidates an existing mesh, requires regeneration, persists across sessions, or what permissions/state are needed for a mutation.

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?

One short front-loaded sentence plus a redundant 'Args: element_size_mm' trailer that merely restates the parameter name. Efficient overall, with only minor waste.

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. For a mutation tool with no annotations and an undocumented parameter, the definition covers the essential 'what and unit' but omits sequencing with generate_mesh and any state effects, leaving meaningful gaps.

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% and the single parameter has no description, so the description's 'in mm' unit note is genuinely additive. However, it adds no range, validity constraints, or default behavior beyond the unit, leaving the parameter only partially characterized.

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 (Set) and resource (global mesh element size) with the unit (mm), which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like generate_mesh or get_mesh_statistics. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the resource is specific enough that confusion is unlikely.

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?

No guidance on when to call this, whether it must precede generate_mesh, or how it interacts with existing mesh state. The likely ordering relative to generate_mesh is left entirely to inference.

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