mesh-fill

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states 'Fill selected edges', implying a geometry modification but not disclosing if it is destructive, how it handles edge selection, side effects, or any other behaviors. It adds minimal information beyond the tool's name and fails to inform about outcomes or requirements.

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, highly concise and front-loaded. It conveys the core action efficiently without unnecessary words. However, it may be too terse, omitting necessary detail, but for conciseness alone it scores high.

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 tool has two parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context about the operation, parameter effects, and expected results. It does not explain what happens when the tool runs, how selection is used, or what the outcome looks like. This incompleteness would leave an agent unable to use the tool correctly.

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 does not explain either parameter ('beauty' or 'object'). The schema only provides titles but no descriptions, so the agent has no idea what 'beauty' controls or how 'object' defaults to active. The description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation, leaving the parameters entirely ambiguous.

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 'Fill selected edges' clearly indicates the action ('fill') and the target resource ('selected edges'), providing a basic understanding of the tool's function. However, it does not distinguish itself from similar mesh editing tools like mesh-edge_face_add, which also operates on selected edges to create geometry. The purpose is clear but lacks specificity about the fill method or outcome.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like having edges selected. There is no mention of context, typical scenarios, or exclusions. It simply states the action without any usage context, leaving the agent without decision-making guidance.

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