Modify mesh edges on a target object: select, deselect, mark seams, mark sharp, or crease edge indices.
Edit mesh edges.
Args: object_name: Target mesh object. action: select, deselect, mark_seam, clear_seam, mark_sharp, crease. edges: List of edge indices (None = selected).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| edges | No | ||
| action | No | select | |
| object_name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions actions like select and mark_seam, but does not explain side effects, edit-mode requirements, whether state is mutated persistently, or what happens when edges is None.
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 scannable, with a clear Args block and no filler. The opening line 'Edit mesh edges' is somewhat redundant with the tool name, but the overall structure is efficient.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves out important context: edit-mode prerequisites, how edge indices are interpreted, effects on existing selections, and return behavior. An agent can copy the argument structure but cannot confidently reason about invocation context.
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?
With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by explaining each parameter and giving the valid action list plus the meaning of None for edges. However, it does not explain what each action actually does to the mesh, and the crease action lacks any mention of a weight or value parameter.
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 the resource (mesh edges) and enumerates the supported operations, so the tool's purpose is clear. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like edit_mesh_vertices or edit_mesh_faces, but the edge-specific scope is evident from the name and arguments.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as bevel_edges, edit_mesh_faces, or UV seam tools. No prerequisites, context, or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.