separate_mesh

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

Lacks annotations, so description must disclose side effects. It does not state whether the original object is deleted or modified, whether new objects are created, or any limitations on mesh type. This is a significant gap for a transformative operation.

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 short and front-loaded, with a clear header and bullet list. It avoids unnecessary text. However, it could include a bit more context (e.g., side effects) without losing conciseness.

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 simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the basic purpose and parameters. However, it omits behavioral details (what happens to original object, new object creation) and error conditions, leaving gaps for a complete understanding.

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%, but the description adds meaning by explaining the 'name' parameter as 'Mesh object name' and listing method options with brief meanings. However, it does not specify defaults, constraints, or valid values (e.g., case sensitivity). Provides some value beyond the bare schema.

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 action (separate) and resource (mesh object) and that it results in multiple objects. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like join_objects or subdivide_mesh, though it could explicitly differentiate from similar operations.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., mesh must be selected) or scenarios where one method is preferred. Only parameter explanations are provided.

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