mesh.inset

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

The description lacks any behavioral details beyond the basic action. With no annotations provided, the description should disclose traits like whether the operation is destructive, how it interacts with modifiers, or what happens to adjacent geometry. It fails to do so.

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, which is concise but lacks essential details. It is not overly verbose, but it sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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 description is incomplete given the tool's complexity and context. It does not explain the concept of inset, how thickness is interpreted (e.g., units), or what the 'object' parameter allows. Sibling tools like mesh.bevel have richer descriptions, making this one feel underspecified.

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 description does not mention either parameter ('object' or 'thickness'). The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description should compensate by explaining what these parameters do. It adds no value beyond the raw schema names.

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 'Inset the selected faces' clearly states the action (inset) and the resource (selected faces). It is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling mesh tools like extrude, bevel, or subdivide.

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, such as when to use inset instead of bevel or extrude. There is also no mention of prerequisites (e.g., need to have faces selected) or when not to use it.

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