Merge vertices within a set distance to remove duplicate geometry in a specified object.
Merge vertices by distance (remove doubles).
Args: object_name: Object name. distance: Merge distance threshold.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| distance | No | ||
| object_name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and only states that vertices are merged by distance. It does not disclose that this mutates the object, that it may be destructive/irreversible, whether it affects the whole mesh or only selected vertices, or what object types are valid.
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 short and front-loaded with the key verb and operation. The Args block is somewhat redundant with the schema, but it does not add fluff or bury the purpose.
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 mutating mesh editing operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits important operational context: mesh object prerequisite, selected vs. whole-object scope, unit of the distance threshold, and expected side effects. It is minimally viable at best.
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 coverage is 0% and the description mostly restates the parameter names: 'Object name' and 'Merge distance threshold' add little beyond the schema's types/default. It does not specify units, valid ranges, or object requirements.
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 states a specific operation: merging vertices by distance (remove doubles), which identifies the resource and behavior. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling mesh tools, but the 'by distance' qualifier makes the intent clear enough.
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 for when to use this tool over alternatives such as limited_dissolve, smooth_vertices, or edit_mesh_vertices. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or selection conditions mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.