smooth_vertices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, whether it requires a selection, what happens with no selection, or how it affects topology, normals, or object state. 'Smooth' implies mutation but little else is revealed.

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: one clear purpose statement followed by three short argument definitions. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves important invocation context unstated, such as whether the target must be a mesh, whether edit mode is required, and what the scope of 'selected vertices' means in practice. An agent could easily call it with the wrong object type or without a selection.

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 parameter glosses in the description are essential. It gives a meaningful one-line explanation for each parameter, including the 0–1 range for factor and the count semantics for iterations. The object_name gloss is generic but sufficient.

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 uses a specific verb ('Smooth') and identifies the resource ('selected vertices'), making it clear this is a mesh-smoothing operation. It doesn't explicitly differentiate it from nearby mesh tools like limited_dissolve or remesh_sculpt, but the core purpose 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 alternatives, nor any stated prerequisites such as requiring a mesh object, edit mode, or an active vertex selection. The agent is left to infer the intended workflow.

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