poly_quadify

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

The annotations already flag this as destructive (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), so the description's mutation implication adds little. It does add one useful behavioral caveat—quads are produced only where possible—but does not explain what happens to faces that cannot be converted or whether the result is partial.

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 explanation is two short bilingual sentences that front-load the action and outcome, followed by a relevant caveat. There is no filler or repetition beyond the deliberate Chinese/English duplication.

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?

The schema and annotations cover parameters and destructiveness, and the tool is fairly simple. However, it does not state prerequisites such as requiring an Editable Poly object or how it behaves when quadification is only partially successful.

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%: both faces and objects are described with clear omission behavior. The description itself adds no parameter-level information, so the 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Merge triangles into quads') and states the intended outcome (cleaner topology), making the tool's function unmistakable. It is semantically distinct from nearby poly_* operations such as poly_triangulate, even though no sibling is named.

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?

There is no guidance on when to reach for this tool instead of an alternative like poly_triangulate or poly_optimize. 'Not every triangle mesh can be quadified' is a caution about failure, not a usage rule or exclusion condition.

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