blender_mesh_merge

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does communicate that the tool merges vertices and supports different positional strategies and a distance threshold, but it omits important effects such as whether only selected vertices are affected, whether the mesh is destructively modified, and how topology or UV data are handled.

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 focused sentence plus a compact mode list. It front-loads the core action, includes useful use cases, and contains no filler or redundancy.

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?

Even with full schema coverage, the description leaves a functional gap: it does not explain how vertices are targeted when vertex_indices is omitted, how the merge modes interact with selection, or what happens when no indices are supplied. For a destructive mesh operation with no annotation safety profile, this is not enough context to invoke the tool with confidence.

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 input schema already has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of merge modes and distance threshold lightly reinforces the schema but does not add new meaning beyond what the enum and parameter descriptions already provide.

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 opens with a specific action and target ('Merge vertices together'), then lists concrete use cases and the supported merge modes. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like blender_object_join, which merges objects rather than vertices.

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 use cases 'close gaps, join geometry, remove doubles' imply when the tool is appropriate, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like blender_object_join, blender_mesh_dissolve, or blender_mesh_bridge. No exclusions or alternative routing is provided.

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