create_mesh_primitive

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only says 'Create 3D mesh resource' and lists types. It does not disclose whether existing files are overwritten, what the function returns, any side effects, or required permissions. For a mutation tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and resource, followed by examples and a count. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately sized for a tool of this complexity.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description needs to cover more context. It does not mention the return value, error cases, or behavior on existing files. It also doesn't explain that 'params' overrides defaults or that 'path' is an output path (though the schema covers those). This is insufficient for a create operation, which typically has side effects and potential errors.

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 67% (path and params have descriptions, mesh_type has only the enum). The description adds a few mesh type examples and the total count, which partially supplements the mesh_type enum but does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides. This aligns with the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Create') and the resource ('3D mesh resource'), and lists several concrete mesh types (Box, Capsule, etc.) with a count of 11. This distinguishes it from generic 'create_resource' and other mesh-related tools like 'create_multimesh'.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: to create a 3D mesh resource. It provides context by naming mesh types, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives (e.g., 'create_resource' for non-mesh resources). This is clear context without exclusions, matching a 4.

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