poly_relax

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, covering the mutation and destructive nature of the tool. The description adds no further behavioral context—it does not mention irreversibility, object selection behavior, or whether it creates vs. modifies a modifier. There is no contradiction with the annotations, but the description does not go beyond them.

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 short and front-loaded, with the verb and resource stated immediately. The bilingual repetition (Chinese and English) doubles the length for the same content, but this is a common pattern and not overly verbose. It earns its place by being compact.

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 polygon operation with no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not clarify whether this applies a Relax modifier to objects or relaxes vertices directly on an editable poly—a key ambiguity given the sibling mod_relax. It also omits any note about selection behavior or side effects beyond the annotations. An agent cannot confidently decide between poly_relax and mod_relax from this text alone.

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 fully documents all four parameters, including defaults and ranges. The description only repeats the meaning of iterations ('pass count'), which adds no new information beyond the schema. 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 names the operation ('Relax vertices via the Relax modifier') and the intended outcome ('reduce wrinkles and even out the mesh'), so an agent can grasp the core function. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool mod_relax, which also appears to involve the Relax modifier. The purpose is clear but sibling differentiation is absent.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mod_relax or other polygon smoothing tools. The description only states what the tool does, not under what conditions it should be chosen or what prerequisites exist. This leaves the agent to infer usage context.

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