poly_optimize

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, and the description adds the visible shape change warning, which is valuable context. It explains that the operation alters geometry significantly, which is not fully captured by the annotation alone. No contradiction with annotations.

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 short sentences in each language. It front-loads the purpose, includes the key parameter, and adds a warning. No wasted words; well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 simple modifier tool with all optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main effect and warning. It doesn't mention the effect on object modifiers or revertibility, but those are likely covered by the destructive annotation. Overall, it provides enough context for an agent to use it correctly.

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 100%, so all parameters are documented. The description reiterates the percent parameter meaning (kept vertex percentage 0-100), which is already in the schema, but does not add extra detail about objects or keepNormals. It adds minimal value 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 clearly states the tool simplifies models using ProOptimizer by a percentage, with percent as the kept vertex percentage. This is a specific verb and resource, and it stands out among the many poly-related siblings as the only optimization/simplification tool.

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 when to use it (for simplification) and provides a caution for sculpted/high-detail meshes, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The warning about shape change is useful but does not compare to other poly tools like poly_relax or poly_subdivide.

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