procedural_generate

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It details shape-specific parameters but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it overwrites existing objects, requires an active selection, or handles errors. The BMesh mention provides some insight but not comprehensive.

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 concise, front-loads the purpose, and uses bullet points for shape options. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary elaboration.

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 the tool's complexity with multiple shape types and parameters, the description covers the essential information. It includes all shape options and their parameters. The absence of return value explanation is mitigated by the presence of an output schema.

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%, but the description thoroughly explains all three parameters: shape with enumerated options and their required sub-parameters, name as object name, and params as JSON. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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?

The description states a specific verb ('generate') and resource ('procedural geometry using BMesh'), and explicitly distinguishes from basic primitives by noting it creates more complex shapes. This differentiates it from sibling tools like create_object.

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 provides some context by stating it creates more complex shapes than basic primitives, implying use for advanced geometry. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or references to alternative tools like bmesh_operation.

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