inset_face

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, indicating this is a mutating operation. However, the description adds no additional context about what changes occur to the mesh, whether it is reversible, or any side effects. It does not contribute beyond what annotations already provide.

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 extremely short, consisting of a single sentence with no fluff. It is concise, but it is under-specified: it does not provide enough detail for an agent to use the tool effectively. It is not a tautology, but it lacks necessary content, making it only minimally acceptable in terms of conciseness.

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?

Given that this is a destructive mesh editing tool with four parameters, a required object_name, and no usage guidance, the description is far too sparse. The output schema exists but is not shown, and the description does not cover return values or side effects. The tool cannot be used correctly based solely on this description.

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%, and the description does not compensate. The parameters depth, thickness, face_index, and object_name are left entirely unexplained. The words 'inset' and 'face' only hint at face_index, but the roles of depth and thickness are unclear, and there is no explanation of how object_name is used.

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 'Inset satu face' clearly states the verb 'inset' and the resource 'face', indicating the tool insets a face on a mesh object. It is specific enough to be understood, but it does not distinguish from sibling tools like extrude_face or bevel_mesh, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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. The description provides no context about prerequisites, such as needing a selected face or being in edit mode, and does not mention any exclusions or alternative tools. It merely states the operation without usage direction.

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