mesh-merge

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. 'Merge selected vertices' implies a permanent modification to the mesh, but it does not disclose side effects (e.g., what happens to faces/edges), prerequisites (e.g., vertex selection required), or whether UVs are affected by default.

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, tightly written sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and efficient, but the extreme brevity sacrifices necessary operational detail. It earns a 4 for being concise without verbosity.

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 is moderately complex (multiple merge modes, UV toggle, object targeting) yet the description provides none of the needed context. There is no output schema to compensate, so the agent lacks information about behavior, return values, or how parameters interact.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description adds no explanation of the three parameters (uvs, type, object). The enum for 'type' is self-explanatory to some extent, but the description does not elaborate on options like CENTER vs CURSOR or how the 'object' parameter works, leaving the agent to guess.

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 'Merge selected vertices' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly conveying the core operation. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'mesh-subdivide' or 'mesh-remove_doubles' but does not explicitly differentiate itself, leaving a small ambiguity.

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. With sibling tools like 'mesh-remove_doubles' (which also merges vertices by distance) and 'mesh-dissolve', the lack of context or exclusions makes it hard for an agent to select this tool correctly.

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