mesh-edge_face_add

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

No behavioral details are disclosed. The tool mutates the mesh but there is no mention of whether it requires edit mode, whether it modifies the active object, or what happens if no selection is present. With no annotations, the description leaves all behavioral aspects to the agent's imagination.

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 short sentence, which is concise, but it lacks structure. It is not front-loaded with the most critical information; it only partially states purpose and omits usage details.

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 of mesh editing and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain selection requirements, mode constraints, or how the resulting edge/face is determined, making the tool nearly unusable without additional context.

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 single parameter 'object' is described only by its title ('Mesh object to edit (defaults to active)'), which provides some meaning but not enough to understand how to specify it (e.g., by name or ID). The schema coverage is 0%, so the description does not add any detail about the parameter's format or usage.

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 general action ('Create an edge or face') but lacks specificity about what input is required (selected elements, edges, vertices) and how it relates to the 'add' operation. It is vague and does not distinguish from similar mesh tools like mesh-fill or mesh-extrude.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., selection mode, being in edit mode) or scenarios where this tool would be preferred over mesh-fill or other geometry creation tools.

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