create_lod

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly promises that the source object is NEVER modified, states that new named objects are created, and explains the output as per-level triangle counts. It does not cover overwrite/conflict behavior, but the core side-effect profile is clear.

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 and efficiently structured: action first, then safety guarantee, then return value. Every sentence provides useful information without filler.

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 7-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is largely complete: it names outputs, states safety behavior, and summarizes the return value. Minor gaps remain around collection behavior and triangulation, but those are partly inferable from parameter names.

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 coverage is 71%, and the description adds the <base>_LOD0 naming convention plus the return value meaning. However, it does not explain the undocumented collection or triangulate parameters, nor does it add significant semantics beyond the schema for parameters like ratios or apply.

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: 'Generate an LOD chain by duplicating and decimating.' It names the exact output objects (<base>_LOD0, <base>_LOD1, ...) and clearly distinguishes itself from related tools like add_decimate by describing a multi-level chain workflow.

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 intended use is implied: create LOD levels from a source mesh. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as add_decimate, duplicate_object, or manual modifier workflows, nor does it state when NOT to use this tool.

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