mesh_cleanup

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Modifies the mesh -- checkpoint first', warning of destructive action and suggesting a safety measure. However, it omits details about scope (e.g., whether it affects selection or entire scene) and potential side effects on UVs or materials.

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 two short sentences with no fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by a crucial safety warning. Every word adds value.

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 tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify which object(s) are affected, the units for merge_distance, or the exact behavior of merge_by_distance. The safety warning is helpful but does not address the missing operational details.

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 only 25%, and the description itself does not mention any parameters. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage by explaining merge_distance, merge_by_distance, or delete_loose semantics. The only parameter with a description in the schema is delete_loose, leaving the others ambiguous.

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 tool's purpose: 'merge coincident vertices and drop loose geometry'. It uses specific verbs and identifies the resource (mesh), making it unambiguous. It also hints at a conservative approach, which distinguishes it from more aggressive cleanup tools.

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 implies usage for mesh hygiene but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like recalculate_normals or triangulate_mesh. It mentions checkpointing, which is a safety guideline, but lacks explicit when-to-use/alternatives guidance.

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