remesh

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only says 'Remesh mesh' without mentioning that it modifies the mesh's topology, whether the operation is destructive, or what the output looks like. This fails to convey essential behavioral traits.

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 very short and front-loaded with the action, which is good, but it is so under-specified that it reads like a stub rather than a deliberate concise description. The list of modes is useful but not structured with any context.

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?

Given that the tool has three parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It omits explanations of mode behavior, voxel_size semantics, and any side effects, leaving an agent unable to use it correctly without extra context.

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. It enumerates the 'mode' values but doesn't explain what each does, and 'voxel_size' is not mentioned at all. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter names.

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 clearly states the action ('Remesh mesh') and lists specific modes, so an agent knows it reshapes a mesh. However, it doesn't differentiate from other mesh operations like subdivide or bevel, nor does it specify that it acts on the selected object or the 'object_name' parameter.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus other mesh-editing tools, nor any mention of prerequisites or context. The modes are listed but without any explanation of appropriate use cases.

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