poly_triangulate

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the mutating nature is covered. The description adds the topological outcome and rationale, but it does not disclose prerequisites (e.g., editable poly requirement) or side effects beyond the destructive hint.

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, front-loaded with the action, and contains no filler. The bilingual repetition is acceptable and each sentence contributes either the operation or the usage context.

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 mutating topology tool, the description, schema, and annotations cover the essential invocation details. A note about prerequisites such as editable-poly state could make it more complete, but this is a minor gap given the poly_* tool family context.

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 explains both parameters. The description mostly restates the target as 'selected faces' and does not add meaningful parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('Triangulate'), a specific resource ('selected faces'), and the exact outcome ('split each polygon into triangles'). This clearly differentiates it from other poly_* topology tools like poly_quadify, even though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

It gives an explicit use context: real-time/game engines generally require triangles. It does not list exclusions or alternatives, but the stated use case is enough for an agent to decide when this tool is appropriate.

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