Inset selected faces on a mesh object by specifying thickness and boundary inclusion for precise modeling control.
Inset selected faces of a mesh.
Args: object_name: Object name. thickness: Inset thickness. use_boundary: Also inset boundary edges.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| thickness | No | ||
| object_name | Yes | ||
| use_boundary | No |
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 must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention any side effects, whether the operation is destructive, whether a selection is required, or what the result looks like. The description only lists parameters, providing no behavioral context.
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 concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The parameter list is efficient and easy to scan. No unnecessary words are used, though it could be slightly more structured with clearer separations.
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 mesh-editing tool with three parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information about selection requirements, the exact effect of thickness, how the operation modifies the mesh, or any postconditions. An agent would need to guess important aspects before calling this tool.
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?
The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema: it explains each parameter in a one-line format, and 'use_boundary' is clarified as 'Also inset boundary edges.' However, with 0% schema description coverage, this modest addition helps but does not fully compensate for the lack of deeper semantics like units or effect on mesh.
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 action ('inset selected faces of a mesh') with a specific verb and resource. It is not a tautology and conveys the core operation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like extrude_faces or bevel_edges, though the name itself provides some distinction.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent is left to infer from the name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.