mesh-remove_doubles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't state that this is a destructive operation (merging vertices removes them), whether it affects the active object by default, or what happens to UVs, normals, or other vertex data. The description is too terse to convey the operational impact.

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, concise sentence that gets to the point. It's front-loaded with the action and resource. However, it's so brief that it sacrifices necessary detail, but for conciseness alone it earns a 4.

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's complexity (mesh editing with a threshold parameter) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the effect of the threshold, whether it operates on the active object, or any side effects. The sibling tools like mesh-merge and mesh-dissolve suggest a family of mesh operations, but this description doesn't position itself within that 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'threshold' implicitly via 'merge distance threshold' in the schema, but the description itself doesn't explain the parameters. The schema provides titles and defaults, but the description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already shows. With 2 parameters and 0% coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate because the schema is fairly self-explanatory.

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 duplicate vertices' clearly states the action (merge) and the resource (duplicate vertices), which is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like mesh-merge, mesh-dissolve, and mesh-delete. It doesn't explicitly mention the mesh object context, but the tool name and schema parameter 'object' clarify that.

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 like mesh-merge or mesh-dissolve. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., being in edit mode, selecting vertices) or typical use cases. The threshold parameter is self-explanatory but no context is given for choosing appropriate values.

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