object.separate

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

Annotations already convey readOnly=false, destructive=false. The description adds 'Risk: standard' and 'maturity: L3', which give minimal meta-level context, but it does not disclose behavioral traits like whether the operation modifies scene state, how it affects object data, or any side effects. It essentially leaves behavior unexplained beyond the annotations.

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 text is short but not effectively concise because it wastes space on barely informative boilerplate. It lacks the essential one-sentence purpose and instead uses perfunctory phrases, making it under-specified rather than efficiently sized.

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 7-parameter tool with an output schema, the description should at least explain the operation's purpose and semantics. It does not explain what 'separate' means, how the method enum affects behavior, what objectId targets, or what the response contains. The output schema may exist but the description still leaves the agent without a mental model of the operation.

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 43%, but the core parameters (name, method, objectId) have no descriptions in the schema. The description provides no clarification of what these parameters mean or how method values (indices, spatial, connected, normal) affect the operation. The description fails to compensate for undocumented parameters.

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 only repeats the tool name ('PartMe Blender Harness command `object.separate`') and adds generic risk/maturity labels. It does not state what the command does, such as separating an object into pieces, nor does it differentiate it from siblings like blender_object_join or blender_object_duplicate.

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 information is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description is entirely about harness requirements and risk levels, not about use cases, prerequisites, or selecting among sibling operations.

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