add_mesh

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that meshes need mesh-capable formats and warns about limitations for certain exports. It also gives parameter hints (e.g., 'For a shard make h large'). However, it does not discuss side effects or permissions.

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 concise with two sentences and a note, each sentence earning its place: first states purpose, second gives usage context, note warns limitations. No unnecessary words.

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 complexity (10 parameters, no output schema), the description covers purpose, examples, limitations, and parameter hints. It does not explain return values, but the overall completeness is high for agent decision-making.

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 high (90%), but the description adds value beyond the schema by providing usage context (e.g., 'For a shard make h large') and explaining UV rect and segments. This enriches understanding beyond default values.

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 explicitly states it creates non-cuboid MESH primitives, listing specific shapes like crystals, pyramids, cones, etc. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like 'add_cube' by focusing on non-axis-aligned geometry.

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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use examples ('Great for crystal cores, blades, horns...') and a when-not-to-use note with an alternative approach for GeckoLib/Java format, where users should build crystals from rotated cubes instead.

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