blender_mesh_flatten

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 explaining side effects. It communicates the core flattening behavior but does not disclose that vertex positions are permanently modified, whether it operates only on the supplied vertex_indices vs. current Blender selection, or what happens to the mesh after the operation.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The action is stated first, followed by concrete, useful examples; nothing is wasted.

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 simple 3-parameter operation with fully documented schema fields, the description is adequate but has gaps. It does not clarify that vertex_indices, rather than the current Blender selection, defines 'selected vertices', nor does it describe the operation's return value or the fact that the mesh is modified in place.

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 100%, so the parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description adds no meaningful detail about object_name, vertex_indices, or plane beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Flatten selected vertices to a plane') with a clear resource and domain. The use cases ('clean up bumpy surfaces, create perfectly flat areas') make the tool's purpose immediately understandable and distinguishable from the many other mesh editing siblings.

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: flattening bumpy surfaces or making flat body-panel regions. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the use-case framing is enough to guide an agent toward this tool.

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