blender_mesh_select_edge_loops

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it only states the basic action. It does not disclose whether the object must be in edit mode, whether the selection replaces or extends the current selection, how open/boundary edge loops are handled, or what happens with an invalid edge_index. These are material behavioral traits for an agent invoking a selection mutation.

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?

Two short sentences with the functional information front-loaded. The second sentence ('loops define the flow of geometry') is motivational rather than operational, but it is brief and does not bloat the description.

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 essential calling contract is covered: all three parameters are documented at 100% schema coverage and the operation is described clearly. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits behavioral prerequisites such as edit-mode requirements and selection-combination semantics. For a simple selection tool this is a moderate gap, not a fatal one.

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 baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'edge loops or edge rings' loosely enriches the ring parameter's meaning, but it adds no syntax, format, or boundary details beyond what the schema already documents.

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 ('Select') and resource ('complete edge loops or edge rings through a given edge'), which clearly identifies the operation. The loop/ring concept inherently distinguishes it from generic siblings like blender_mesh_select, blender_mesh_select_shortest_path, and blender_mesh_select_trait, though it doesn't name any alternative explicitly.

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?

'Fundamental for hard surface modeling' provides implied usage context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over the many sibling selection tools (select, select_shortest_path, select_trait, select_linked_flat) or when not to use it. The guidance is suggestive, not directional.

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