fill_holes

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions detecting and filling holes but doesn't disclose if the operation is destructive, reversible, or requires a specific mesh state. Lacks details on side effects or limitations.

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?

Single sentence, no fluff, but it omits critical information. It is concise but at the cost of completeness. Fails to front-load essential 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?

With one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more context about expected result, return value, or post-condition. It does not mention whether holes are filled on the original mesh or a copy, or if it works on selected vertices.

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 description does not explain the single required parameter 'name'. It's unclear whether this refers to the object name, mesh name, or something else. Description adds no value beyond 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?

Description clearly states it detects and fills holes in a mesh, with a specific method (selecting non-manifold edges). The verb-resource pair is clear, but among sibling tools like 'merge_by_distance' or 'boolean_cleanup', it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself, though the operation is distinct enough.

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 use this tool versus alternatives like 'retopology' or 'boolean_cleanup'. No mention of prerequisites, edge cases, or when not to use it.

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