blender_curve_from_mesh_edge

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose side effects and behavior on its own. It does not say whether the original mesh is modified, whether a new curve object is created, or what happens with non-contiguous or unsorted edge indices. 'Extract' implies creation, but the behavioral contract is under-specified.

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 compact: one sentence states the core action, and a second sentence frames practical use cases. There is no filler or redundant schema repetition, and the key behavior is front-loaded.

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 tool that mutates scene state, the description is adequate but incomplete. The parameters are fully covered by the schema and the purpose is stated, but the description omits important operational details such as whether the tool creates a separate curve object, whether source mesh remains unchanged, and what happens when edge_indices describe disconnected edges.

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 coverage is 100%, so the JSON schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds the useful context that edge_indices are used to derive curves along existing geometry, but it does not add meaning about curve_type ordering, expected index format, or edge connectivity beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Extract') and a specific resource ('curve from mesh edge indices'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like blender_curve_create and blender_curve_to_mesh. The added use cases further reinforce what the tool accomplishes.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: creating curves that follow existing geometry for pipe routing or profile extraction. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the 'from mesh edge indices' framing makes the intended context reasonably clear.

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