mesh-delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It states 'Delete' which implies a destructive operation, but it does not explain consequences like irreversibility, how different delete modes affect connected elements, or whether the tool only operates on the active object. This is too thin for a destructive tool.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words and is front-loaded with the key verb. However, it is borderline under-specified, but as a standalone summary it is appropriately concise.

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?

The tool has moderate complexity with five enum-based delete modes and no output schema. The description is not complete enough for safe invocation: it does not explain mode-specific behaviors, prerequisites like being in edit mode, or the effect of the object parameter. An agent would likely need to inspect the schema or experiment to understand the tool's full behavior.

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%, and the description adds no semantic detail for the parameters. It does not explain what the 'type' enum values (VERT, EDGE, FACE, etc.) actually do or how the 'object' parameter behaves beyond 'defaults to active'. The description fails to compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 'Delete selected mesh elements' clearly names the action (delete) and the resource (selected mesh elements), distinguishing it from object-level deletion tools like object-delete and from other mesh operations. The scope is specific enough to convey the tool's core purpose.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mesh-dissolve, mesh-merge, or object-delete. It does not mention edit mode requirements, prerequisites, or situations where a different tool would be more appropriate.

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