mod_subdivide

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this operation is destructive. The description adds that it is 'classic subdivision, no smoothing change', which clarifies the behavioral effect. However, it does not disclose whether the modifier is added to the stack or applied destructively, how the size parameter maps to subdivision levels, or what happens to existing modifiers.

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 with the core behavior. The bilingual format adds some redundancy but is acceptable for a multilingual tool. Every sentence earns its place, though the English repetition of the Chinese text is not strictly necessary.

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 destructive modifier tool with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and the key parameter semantics. However, it lacks guidance on how the modifier is applied (stack vs. collapse), how 'size' interacts with existing geometry, and what the expected result is. The annotations cover the destructive hint, but the description could be more complete for an agent deciding whether to call this tool.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds the key semantic that 'size' is the subdivision size in scene units, which is already in the schema. It does not add meaningful detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('split each face into smaller faces by size') and resource ('subdivide modifier'), and clarifies it is classic subdivision without smoothing change. It is clear enough to distinguish from poly_subdivide and mod_turbosmooth, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling.

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 implies usage context: it is a modifier-based subdivision controlled by size, and the 'no smoothing change' note helps differentiate it from smoothing modifiers. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like poly_subdivide or mod_turbosmooth, nor does it mention prerequisites such as object selection or modifier stack requirements.

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