loop_tools

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully explains that 'factor' controls how far vertices move and that 'radius' only applies to CIRCLE, but it does not state whether the mesh edit is destructive, undoable, or what permissions are needed.

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 the core action, then neatly structured into Args and Returns sections. It avoids waste, though the Args list is somewhat verbose and could be tightened further.

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?

With an output schema present, the Returns note is sufficient, and all five parameters are documented. The main remaining gap is behavioral safety context for a mutation tool with no annotations — for example, undo behavior or whether the edit is in-place.

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 each parameter clearly, including the meaning of each operation enum value, the 0.0–1.0 range for 'factor', the CIRCLE-only restriction for 'radius', and the CURRENT/ALL distinction for 'selection'.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource — 'Reshape selected loops' — and names the three operations (round, even, flat). This makes the tool's purpose clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar siblings like loop_cut or bridge_edge_loops.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent to 'Select a loop or region first with the select_* tools', which is a clear prerequisite. It does not, however, say when to prefer this over alternatives such as loop_cut or subdivide_mesh.

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