retopologize

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-annotated traits: it 'spends credits' and returns a task_id immediately (async, non-blocking). It does not clarify what happens to the original mesh, but the cost and async disclosures are meaningful additions.

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 sentences, zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed immediately by the cost and async handoff, which is exactly the ordering an agent needs before deciding to call.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value detail is unnecessary, and the description covers the key non-schema facts: cost, async behavior, and the required follow-up call. It does not address whether the source mesh is altered (relevant given destructiveHint=true) or the credit magnitude, leaving a minor gap for a 7-parameter task-creating tool.

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 100%, so every parameter (bake, quad, model, smart_uv, face_limit, part_names) is already documented in the schema, including enum values and ranges. The description's 'triangles or quads' only loosely echoes the quad param and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Rebuild a mesh as clean low-poly triangles or quads') with a parenthetical that names the technique (smart low-poly retopology). This clearly separates it from siblings like segment_mesh, complete_mesh, or smart_uv, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling it is not.

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 workflow context: it creates a Tripo task, returns a task_id immediately, and instructs the agent to 'call wait_for_task' next. That routes the agent through the async pattern. It stops short of stating when to choose this over alternatives (e.g., version trade-offs), but the operational guidance is clear.

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