split_object

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that pieces retain their positions, painted colors are preserved, and modifiers/negative parts follow the piece they overlap. It stops short of stating whether the operation is destructive to the source object, whether it is undoable, or what it returns.

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 action, then mode semantics, then preservation rules — a logical order with no filler. It is dense and parenthetical-heavy, but each clause adds information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers outcome semantics, spatial behavior, and material assignment well. Missing pieces are the fate of the original object and the return value, which an agent would want before calling.

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, and it does for 'into' by enumerating both meaningful values and their distinct outcomes. The 'object' parameter is only implied (no indication whether it is a name, index, or id), which is the remaining gap.

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 concrete verb and resource ("Split an object into its separate pieces") and immediately defines the two resulting modes, so the agent knows exactly what transformation happens. It does not explicitly contrast with nearby siblings such as cut_object, boolean_objects, or merge_objects, which keeps it from a 5.

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 gives clear mode-selection guidance: into='objects' for one object per piece (including multi-part decomposition), into='parts' when each piece needs its own filament. That is real when-to-use context, but there is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over cut_object or boolean_objects, so no exclusions or alternatives are stated.

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