edit_mesh_operation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does a good job: it describes each operation's effect, parameter applicability, valid ranges, selection scoping, and return summary. It stops short of explicitly stating prerequisites such as edit-mode/active-object requirements or whether changes are undoable, but the mutation behavior is otherwise well disclosed.

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 front-loaded with a clear one-line purpose, then uses structured Arg and Returns sections. Despite covering seven parameters and five operations, every line provides useful information without repetition.

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 seven-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and a schema that lacks parameter descriptions, the description supplies operation semantics, parameter meanings and ranges, selection behavior, and a return summary. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, especially since an output schema also exists.

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 fully. It documents all seven parameters: object_name, the operation enum with each mode's meaning, selection modes, and the operation-specific meanings and ranges for factor, repeat, offset, and thickness. This adds clear semantics beyond the bare 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 states a specific verb and resource: run common edit-mode operations on a mesh. It enumerates the exact operation set and their effects, making the tool's purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling mesh-edit tools such as subdivide_mesh, bevel_edges, or merge_vertices.

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 what each operation does and clarifies that selection can be ALL or CURRENT based on prior select_* tools, which is useful usage context. It does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus sibling mesh operations or when an alternative operation/tool is more appropriate.

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