edit_mesh_vertices

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the available operations (move, delete, smooth, collapse), which communicates that some actions are destructive, but it does not explain consequences such as irreversible deletion, whether offset is ignored for non-move actions, or coordinate space. Partial transparency only.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a tight parameter list. No filler or repetition of schema defaults. The docstring format is efficient, though it could be one sentence shorter without losing information.

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 provides enough to call it for basic vertex edits and explains the selection fallback. Missing context includes dependency on active selection, behavior of offset for non-move actions, and safety/undo implications of delete and collapse.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: each parameter gets a meaningful description, including the crucial detail that vertices defaults to the current selection when None and the structure of the offset. It could add constraints (e.g., offset only applies to move), but the core semantics are covered.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Edit mesh vertices') and the args enumerate the supported actions, so an agent can tell this is the vertex-level counterpart to edit_mesh_edges and edit_mesh_faces. It does not explicitly call out those siblings, but the target is unambiguous.

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 on when to use this tool versus related vertex operations such as merge_vertices, smooth_vertices, or edit_mesh_edges/faces. The parameter list implies the general use case, but no when-to-use, prerequisite, or exclusion information is provided.

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