set_mesh_size

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

The description starts with '[MODIFIES MODEL]', which explicitly signals a side-effectful operation—an important behavioral disclosure since no annotations are provided. It also clarifies the scope ('global'). However, it does not disclose consequences such as invalidating an existing mesh, requiring regeneration, or whether the setting is persistent.

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, front-loaded sentence with a useful side-effect indicator. Every word contributes: the mutation warning, the action, the scope, the target, and the unit constraint. There is no fluff or repetition of the tool name.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. Still, it omits practical context such as when to call this relative to generate_mesh or how the chosen size affects subsequent operations. It is adequate for a basic setter but not fully complete.

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 schema provides no description for element_sizetonight, and schema coverage is 0%. The phrase 'with units' adds meaning by indicating that the required string should include a unit, but it does not explain supported unit formats or whether unitless values are allowed. It partially compensates for the schema gap but leaves ambiguity.

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 a specific action ('Set') on a specific resource ('global mesh element size') and adds a formatting constraint ('with units'). It is not a tautology, and an agent can tell it apart from generate_mesh and get_mesh_statistics, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from those siblings.

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?

No guidance is given about when to call this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention that mesh size should be set before generate_mesh, or that generate_mesh is the follow-up action needed to apply the size. The intended usage is only implied by the verb 'set' and the sibling tool list.

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