dissolve_edges

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that edge loops are removed and the shape preserved, which implies a non-trivially reversible mutation, but omits mode/permission requirements, undo semantics, and any side effects on UVs, normals, or shape keys.

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?

Front-loads the operation and outcome in two tight sentences, then uses labeled Args/Returns sections. Efficient, with only the wrap-around prose being slightly more than strictly needed.

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 2-parameter mesh-editing tool with an output schema present, both parameters are documented and return format can be deferred to the schema. The main gap is behavioral context (mode state, irreversibility) left uncovered in the absence of annotations.

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 description must compensate, and it does: it explains object_name's role and fully defines selection ('ALL' for whole mesh vs 'CURRENT' for the existing selection) including its default, which is more than the bare enum in the schema provides.

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 and resource ('dissolve all edges, merging adjacent faces') and adds the outcome ('simplifies topology by removing unnecessary edge loops while preserving the overall shape'). An agent can identify the operation, though it never contrasts itself with the closely named siblings dissolve_faces and dissolve_verts.

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?

Gives implied usage through the selection parameter ('Use the select_* tools to choose first') and spells out the ALL vs CURRENT behavior, but never says when to prefer dissolve_edges over dissolve_faces/dissolve_verts or what prerequisites (edit mode, active object) apply.

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