edit_mesh

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only 'world-space selections' and 'no edit-mode needed'; it says nothing about whether operations mutate/destroy existing geometry, permission needs, or reversibility. For a 26-operation mesh mutation tool this is a significant gap.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the capability statement before the examples. The examples are dense but each maps to a real operation, so little is wasted; it is appropriately sized for what it does say.

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?

For a 30-parameter, 26-operation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It leaves most parameters and the destructive/reversibility profile unexplained, relying on the operation enum in the schema to carry the load.

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 only 27% across 30 parameters, so the description is expected to compensate heavily. It names a handful of operation values (extrude, inset, bevel, soft_move, loop_cuts, bisect, clear_outer) but never explains the many undocumented knobs (depth, width, thickness, value, cut counts, profile, falloff, plane_point/normal, etc.).

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Edit mesh geometry') and adds the world-space/no-edit-mode qualifier, which is a distinguishing property. The example list clarifies the kind of operations available. However, it never names or contrasts with close siblings like cleanup_mesh or transform_object, so the agent gets little help disambiguating.

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 'Typical:' examples imply when certain operations apply (extrude for necks, bevel for rims, loop_cuts before deforming), which is useful implied usage. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to alternative tools for object-level transforms or mesh cleanup.

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