blender_edit_mesh

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

Annotations indicate this is a mutating, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond annotations: the selection scope (unless region='all') and the return of vertex/edge/face counts before and after. This clarifies side effects and expected output.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and a concrete list of actions. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or redundant information.

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 complexity (many actions, open-ended parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose and selection scope but lacks per-action parameter guidance. It mentions return counts but does not detail all parameter semantics. The schema provides partial coverage, so overall it is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 67%, so the description does not need to fully compensate. It adds meaning to the region parameter (selection scope) and hints at the action list, but objects, distance, and parameters are not elaborated. The description offers modest added 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: editing mesh topology with a list of specific operations (extrude, bevel, inset, subdivide, etc.). It names the resource (mesh) and the action, making it unambiguous and distinguishing it from creation or generic operator tools.

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 context on when it operates ('current edit-mode selection inside the object unless region='all'') but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool instead of alternatives like blender_create_mesh or blender_run_operator. The usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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