blender_mesh_select_linked_flat

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It explains the flood-select and angle threshold mechanism, but it does not mention whether the selection replaces the current selection or adds to it, nor does it state that edit mode is required. These are common expectations for mesh selection tools and should be explicit.

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 sentences with zero waste. The primary action is front-loaded, and the use case is stated briefly. It is efficiently written and easy to scan.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden. While it covers the core behavior, it omits important operational context: whether the selection replaces or augments the current selection, the requirement to be in edit mode, and the exact effect on the scene. These gaps could lead to incorrect usage in a complex pipeline.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by introducing the concept of coplanar selection and clarifying that the angle_threshold defines coplanarity ('within an angle threshold'), which goes beyond the raw schema. It also reinforces the seed face concept, giving slightly more meaning than the schema alone.

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 clearly states the tool flood-selects connected coplanar faces from a seed face, which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes itself from other selection tools by focusing on coplanar faces and flat panels, making it easy to differentiate from 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?

It provides a concrete use case ('Ideal for selecting body panels') and explains the mechanism (expanding within an angle threshold), which tells an agent when to reach for it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when NOT to use it, leaving some inference to the agent.

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