detach_elements

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

The annotations already mark this as destructive (destructiveHint=true), and the description adds behavior by specifying that each element becomes a separate Det_<name>_<n> object. However, it does not explicitly state whether the original object is removed or preserved, relying on the destructive hint to imply the outcome.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the operation, the naming pattern, and the intended use case in two short sentences per language. The bilingual duplication is reasonable for the tool's audience and no sentence is wasted.

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-parameter destructive tool, the description is nearly complete: it names the input, the action on every element, and the output naming pattern. It could be slightly more explicit about the fate of the original object, but the destructiveHint annotation covers the safety expectation.

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 input schema already describes the only parameter (name) with 100% coverage, including that it must be an editable poly object name. The description reinforces this by mentioning editable poly but adds no new parameter-level detail beyond the 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 states a specific action (split an editable poly by element), the resource (editable poly), and the outcome naming convention (Det_<name>_<n>). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like poly_detach_faces, which operate on selected faces rather than every element.

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 gives a clear context: use it to re-separate merged meshes by splitting elements into individual objects. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name an alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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