convert_to_editable_poly

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds crucial details: it collapses the base type and modifiers and cannot be reverted. This goes beyond the annotation by specifying what is destroyed and irreversibility. It aligns with the destructive hint without contradiction.

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 in each language, front-loading the core function and then explaining the behavioral impact. It contains no filler and is well-structured.

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 (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the purpose, prerequisite role, and destructive nature. It does not mention potential error cases or prerequisites beyond selection, but these are implied. The information is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 a full description of the 'objects' parameter (list of object names; omit to use current selection), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter information, so the baseline 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?

The description clearly states the tool converts an object to an Editable Poly, identifies it as a prerequisite for polygon modeling, and explains the effect (collapses base type and modifiers). It is specific about the resource and action, distinguishing it from mesh or NURBS conversions by naming the exact target type.

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 strong usage context by stating it is the prerequisite for almost every polygon modeling operation, guiding agents to use it before such operations. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with alternatives like convert_to_editable_mesh, but the context is clear enough.

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