separate_mesh

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the original mesh is modified, deleted, or preserved, nor does it explain prerequisites such as needing a selection for SELECTED mode. The side effects of the separation operation are entirely opaque.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the core action and immediately lists the available modes. It contains zero fluff and every part contributes to understanding the tool's functionality. This is an exemplary concise structure.

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 moderate complexity and absence of annotations, the description should cover more behavioral context such as side effects, prerequisites, and error conditions. While an output schema exists to handle return values, the operational details are incomplete, making the tool difficult to use correctly without further investigation.

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?

The description adds meaning to the 'mode' parameter by explaining each mode option ('LOOSE (by loose parts), MATERIAL (by material), SELECTED'). However, the required 'object' parameter is not described, and with 0% schema description coverage, the description only partially compensates for the missing parameter documentation.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Separate mesh into multiple objects.' It also details three modes, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like join_meshes, which performs the opposite operation. This is a precise and unambiguous purpose statement.

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 implies when to use the tool (when a mesh needs to be split into separate objects) but provides no explicit alternatives or exclusions. There is no mention of when not to use it or comparison to other mesh tools like join_meshes. The context is clear but not explicitly guided.

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