Create meshes

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: one undo step, a failing item does not stop the others, results returned in input order as {guid,type}|{error}, unspecified settings fall back to tool defaults, and attribute names are localized. These are exactly the traits that let an agent predict side effects and error handling.

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 purpose and a worked example, then units and return semantics. It is dense and slightly run-on but every sentence carries information; nothing is filler.

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 batch-create tool with no output schema and no nested-object support, the description covers geometry semantics, defaults, error/return shape, undo scope, and the localized-name lookup dependency — everything an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: z is relative to mesh 'level', levelLines are ridges/contours that shape the interior, skirtLevel is depth below the base plane, and units are meters/degrees in project coordinates. It complements rather than duplicates the schema.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Creates meshes (terrain / site surfaces)') and immediately pins the domain, distinguishing it from sibling create tools like create_slabs, create_shells, and modify_meshes. The example further anchors what the output element is.

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?

Usage is implied through the geometry guidance and the explicit pointer to read results back with get_element_details and to look up localized names via get_attributes, but it never states when to prefer this over the generic create_elements or when NOT to use it (e.g. vs modify_meshes for existing meshes).

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