blender_mesh_select

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

With no annotations, the description has to carry behavioral disclosure on its own. It does disclose advanced capabilities (grow/shrink, linked selection) and the return contract ('Returns selected indices'), but it never states that the tool modifies the object's active selection state in Blender, which is a meaningful behavioral trait for a selection tool with an action parameter.

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?

Three dense sentences front-load the core purpose, enumerate criteria and capabilities, and close with the return behavior. No filler or repetition, and every clause adds information.

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 16-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete: it explains the return value and highlights the main filter families, but does not clarify how multiple criteria combine (AND vs OR), how action interacts with filter criteria, or what happens when no criteria are supplied. The schema fills some gaps but the high complexity warrants more operational context.

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 schema already explains each parameter. The description adds useful grouping of categories (by index, position, normal, material, angle, area) and links grow/shrink/linked to parameters, but it does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema for individual parameters.

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: 'Multi-criteria mesh selection engine' and enumerates concrete selection criteria (index, position range, normal direction, material, edge angle, face area) and element modes (vertices, edges, faces). This makes its general-purpose role clear and distinguishes it from specialized siblings like blender_mesh_select_shortest_path or blender_mesh_select_edge_loops.

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 'multi-criteria' framing plus the enumerated criteria give an agent clear context for when to use this tool: when selection depends on parametric filters rather than topology/shortest-path/linked-flat heuristics. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use them, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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