mark_seam

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool operates 'on all edges', which is ambiguous: it could mean it affects all edges of the mesh (suggesting a bulk operation) or it marks seams on currently selected edges. The typical Blender workflow requires selecting edges, so the lack of clarity could mislead the agent. Additionally, there is no mention of side effects, undo capabilities, or confirmation details beyond 'Confirmation dict'.

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 concise: a brief introductory sentence, a short explanatory line about UV seams, and a structured Args/Returns section. It avoids unnecessary detail. However, the phrase 'on all edges' may be misleading and could be clarified in a sentence without significantly increasing length.

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 the tool's simplicity, the description covers basic behavior but omits critical details: whether the tool requires the mesh to be in edit mode, whether it operates on the active object or a specified object, and whether it respects selection. No error handling or prerequisites are mentioned. The output schema exists but is vague ('Confirmation dict'). Overall, the description is incomplete for reliable agent invocation.

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?

The input schema has 0% coverage (no descriptions for properties), so the description must clarify parameter meaning. It describes 'object_name' as 'Name of the mesh object' and 'clear' as 'If True, clear seams instead of marking them'. This adds value beyond the schema. However, it does not specify that 'object_name' must be exact or case-sensitive, but overall it provides adequate semantic context.

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 marks or clears UV seams on all edges of a mesh. It uses specific verbs ('Mark or clear') and explicitly identifies the resource ('UV seams on all edges of a mesh'). The context of UV seams for unwrapping is provided, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'mark_sharp' (for sharp edges) and 'uv_unwrap' (the unwrapping process itself).

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 explains that UV seams guide the unwrapping process, implying this tool is used as a preparatory step before 'uv_unwrap'. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'mark_sharp', nor does it give guidance on when not to use it. The usage context is implied but not clearly delineated.

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