mdpa_extract

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the output is a new .mdpa file, what gets included, and that 'the input is untouched' (non-destructive). It omits any mention of the overwrite parameter's behavior, error conditions, or permissions.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with the core action front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though the enumerated list of included content is doing parameter/behavior work that could be structured more helpfully.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the return value need not be described, which the description correctly omits. However, for a file-producing mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves overwrite semantics and the path/output distinction unaddressed.

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%, so the description must compensate and largely does not. The '(dotted path)' hints at the sub_model_part format and 'new .mdpa' hints at output, but path (the source file), output, and overwrite are never explained. Most of the four parameters remain undocumented in both schema and description.

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 gives a specific verb ('Write ... as a new .mdpa') and enumerates exactly what is extracted: entities, their nodes, children, and the root part. An agent can tell it produces a new standalone mesh file rather than inspecting or mutating one. It stops short of naming any sibling (e.g. mdpa_extract_boundary) to disambiguate from the other extraction/merge tools.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus alternatives. The 'sub model part (dotted path)' phrasing implies the input domain and 'the input is untouched' implies a non-mutating extract, but with many siblings (mdpa_extract_boundary, mdpa_merge, mdpa_inspect) the description never says which condition selects this tool over them.

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