cst_set_mesh_density

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

The description adds some behavioral context by explaining the accuracy-performance trade-off, but with no annotations, it misses details such as whether settings are overwritten, if mesh regeneration is required, or other side effects.

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 (two sentences) and front-loaded: first sentence states purpose, second adds a key trade-off. No unnecessary words.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's role and the main parameter's effect. It could be improved by referencing when to use this tool vs other mesh-related siblings.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions; the description adds value only for cells_per_wavelength by explaining its effect. This meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage with minimal additional insight.

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 clearly states the action ('Set') and the resource ('global mesh density parameters controlling automatic mesh generation'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like cst_add_mesh_refinement or cst_set_mesh_type.

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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. While it mentions the trade-off for cells_per_wavelength, it does not compare to other mesh tools or provide context for when settings should be adjusted.

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