blender_mesh_edge_slide

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the whole burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state 'non-destructive repositioning', which is a meaningful safety trait, but it does not cover details such as behavior on boundary edges, the fact that factor=0 means 'no change', or whether the effective result may depend on selecting edge loops versus single edges.

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?

Exactly two sentences, with the primary action front-loaded and the 'non-destructive' clarification as a single follow-up. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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 schema covers all parameters, and the description defines the operation, which is decent for a simple editing command. However, there is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should at least hint at when this is appropriate relative to alternatives or what 'slide along connected faces' implies for edge selection. That missing usage context leaves it just adequate but not rich.

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?

All four parameters already have a description in the schema (coverage 100%), so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no extra parameter meaning (like what a positive factor does relative to face orientation), so it does not push above the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: slide edges along connected faces, with an explicit purpose of fine-tuning edge loop position. The 'non-destructive' qualifier further disambiguates it from destructive mesh operations like booleans or deletion, making it distinct from siblings such as extruding or loop cutting.

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 phrase 'to fine-tune edge loop position' implies a usage context of interactive adjustment, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer edge_slide over related tools like blender_mesh_loop_cut or blender_mesh_dissolve. No alternatives or exclusions are named.

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