update_procedural_mesh_section

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: the update is in-place with fixed topology, and a negative/missing section is an error. However, it doesn't say what happens to existing vertices, whether the component must already exist, or whether the call can fail mid-update.

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?

Two tight sentences plus a return-shape line, with the core semantics front-loaded. Since no output schema exists, the Returns line earns its place rather than duplicating structured data.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers purpose, the topology constraint, the error condition, and the return shape. The only gap is usage context relative to the many sibling procedural-mesh tools.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema (vertices, actor_label, section_index, component_index). The description only implicitly references vertices ('new vertex positions') and section validity, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (update) and resource (procedural mesh section), and the parenthetical 'in-place (same topology, new vertex positions)' distinguishes it from sibling creation tools like create_procedural_box_mesh or slice_procedural_mesh. It does not explicitly name or route against any sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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 when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as create_procedural_grid_mesh or clear_procedural_mesh. The only constraint given ('a negative or missing section is an error') is a validation rule, not a routing hint.

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