validate_mesh

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals that this is a safe read operation, and the description adds useful context by listing the metrics returned and the needs_cure flag. It does not describe error behavior or define degenerate/scale checks, but for a read-only stats tool the safety profile is already covered.

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 entire description is one tight sentence that front-loads the output categories and closes with the return flag. Every word earns its place, and no unrelated detail is included.

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 one-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the main outputs and connects to the cure workflow via needs_cure. It is slightly incomplete because object_name is not tied to the description, but the schema title and simple call surface make this a minor gap.

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% and the description never mentions object_name, so the only guidance comes from the schema's property name/title. Because coverage is low, the description needed to compensate with at least a hint that object_name selects the mesh to analyze, and it does not.

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 identifies a mesh-analysis resource and lists concrete outputs ('ngons/tris/quads, degenerate, UV, scale') plus a 'needs_cure flag'. It doesn't use a strong verb like 'validates', but the stats and flag make the tool's role unambiguous and distinguish it from armature/scene validation siblings.

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 this tool is for inspecting mesh health and deciding whether curing is needed, but it never states when to use it instead of related tools like uv_validate, diag_validate_armature, or scene_get_stats. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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