rhino_reduce_mesh

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is established without the description. The description adds no context about whether the original mesh is replaced in place, whether a new object is created, or how reduction affects mesh quality, but those gaps are partially mitigated by the annotation coverage.

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?

Eight words in a single sentence with the verb front-loaded. Every word conveys information; there is no filler 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?

Despite having an output schema and annotations, the description omits sibling differentiation and any note that object_id must identify a mesh, and it does not state whether the operation mutates the original object. For a destructive mesh operation with several near-siblings, this is insufficient.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description needed to compensate but only clarifies target_face_count (the desired resulting count rather than a delta or percentage). The required object_id parameter is left undocumented and unexplained, so the agent gets no help determining which object the reduction applies to.

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 states a specific verb ('reduce'), a resource ('a mesh'), and a measurable outcome ('target face count'), so an agent can tell what operation this performs. However, it does not differentiate it from closely related siblings such as rhino_rebuild_mesh, rhino_quad_remesh, or rhino_cmd_reduce_mesh, which all alter mesh structure or resolution.

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 on when to use this tool versus the many related mesh tools (rhino_rebuild_mesh, rhino_triangulate_mesh, rhino_quad_remesh, rhino_cmd_reduce_mesh). There is no use-case context, no prerequisite that object_id must reference a mesh, and no exclusions.

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