bridge_edge_loops

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that faces are created, but lacks details on mutation, side effects, or error conditions. The prerequisite is mentioned, but not all behavioral traits are covered.

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 well-structured with a short summary followed by a docstring-style breakdown. It is informative without being overly verbose, though could be slightly more concise.

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 3 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (implied by Return description), the description covers prerequisites, parameter ranges, and return value. Use cases are listed. It lacks error conditions or detailed postconditions but is largely complete for 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so description must explain parameters. It does so effectively: object_name (mesh object with selected loops), segments (range 1-1000), profile_shape_factor (range -1.0 to 1.0, with meaning of values). This adds significant value beyond the schema.

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 tool's purpose: 'Bridge two edge loops to create connecting geometry.' It uses specific verbs ('bridge') and resources ('edge loops'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., grid_fill, fill_faces) by its unique operation.

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?

The description provides explicit prerequisite: 'Select two edge loops on a mesh before calling this.' It also lists use cases: 'connecting separate mesh parts, creating holes between surfaces, or building tube-like geometry.' However, it does not mention when not to use or suggest alternative tools.

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