convert_to_editable_mesh

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

Annotations already signal destructiveHint=true, so the description does not need to restate that conversion is a modifying operation. It adds useful legacy-vs-poly context, but does not disclose concrete behavioral consequences such as loss of modifier stack or irreversibility, beyond what the annotation already implies.

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 front-loaded with the action and keeps guidance tight. It is bilingual, so the English/Chinese duplication is expected, but it still makes the same comparison and fallback recommendation twice, which prevents a top score.

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?

For a single-optional-parameter conversion command with annotations that already describe the destructive nature, the description fully covers what the tool does, why it differs from the preferred sibling, and the only condition under which it should be used. No output schema is needed for a state-changing command.

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%: the schema already explains that 'objects' is a list of names and that omission uses the current selection. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, so the baseline score of 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 action and target: 'Convert an object to an Editable Mesh.' It explicitly contrasts with convert_to_editable_poly, noting Mesh is legacy and less capable, so an agent can distinguish this from the sibling without ambiguity.

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 an explicit recommendation: prefer convert_to_editable_poly, and use this tool 'only when a legacy mesh interface is needed.' This is a clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use rule with the alternative named.

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