cst_set_mesh_tool

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

With no annotations, this configuration-mutating tool carries the full disclosure burden, yet the description says nothing about prerequisites, whether it overwrites existing mesh settings, or whether a subsequent mesh generation step is required. The only behavioral hint is the word "Set" and the density parenthetical, which is thin for a 5-parameter mutation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler and the primary action stated first. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the source of the coverage gaps rather than a deliberate trade-off.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but for a 5-parameter mutation with zero annotation coverage and 0% schema description coverage the definition is not complete enough. Missing are mesh_type valid values, units/semantics for the density parameters, and the relationship to cst_generate_mesh_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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only names three concepts (mesh type, steps per wavelength, minimum steps) for five parameters, leaving smallest_feature_mm and lines_per_wavelength entirely undocumented and giving no valid mesh_type values even though the schema supplies no enum.

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 a specific verb ("Set") and resource ("mesh type and its density") and even parenthesizes the density dimensions. That is enough for an agent to identify the tool, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling cst_generate_mesh_tool, which an agent could easily confuse with 'set mesh'.

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 this should be used versus cst_generate_mesh_tool, no prerequisite (e.g. an open project or existing model), and no indication of what should happen after setting density. The usage context is left entirely to inference.

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