mdpa_merge

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: it discloses that inputs are left untouched, that ids of the appended mesh are shifted past the first, that sub model parts and their data/table/property references are united, that colliding table ids are shifted, and that inputs with unrepresentable blocks are refused with a skipped_blocks signal.

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?

Front-loads the core action ('Append the mesh in other to path and write output') before the detail sentences. It is dense and somewhat run-on, but each sentence carries distinct, non-redundant behavior detail rather than filler.

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 complex mesh-merge operation the description covers id shifting, data carry-over, node merging, and refusal conditions, and an output schema exists so return values need no explanation. The only real gap is the unexplained 'overwrite' flag, which is a minor omission.

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 coverage is 0% so the description must compensate; it thoroughly explains merge_tolerance (coincident-node merging) and gives clear roles for path, other, and output. The 'overwrite' parameter, however, is never addressed in the text, leaving one of five parameters undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (append/merge two MDPA meshes) and names the exact inputs and output ('the mesh in other' appended to 'path', written to 'output'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like mdpa_extract, mdpa_transform, and mdpa_extrude without needing to open those schemas.

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?

Gives concrete conditions for use: apply merge_tolerance when merging coincident nodes along a shared interface to obtain a conforming mesh, and inspect skipped_blocks first when inputs contain unrepresentable blocks. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools to route against, but the when-to-use conditions are clear.

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