blender_mesh_select_trait

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 behavioral disclosure. It says 'Select,' which implies a selection-state change, but it does not disclose that selection replaces the current selection unless extend is true, that the operation is non-destructive to geometry, or what happens on no matches. The schema's extend description partially covers selection behavior, but the tool description itself adds little behavioral transparency.

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 a front-loaded verb and resource, followed by a compact enumerated list of traits. 'Essential for finding problem areas' adds practical context without bloat. Every sentence earns its place, though the enumerations partially overlap schema enum values.

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 is a moderately simple selection operation with five parameters, and the schema already documents all parameters and enums. The description plus schema is probably sufficient for an agent to call it correctly, but without annotations or output schema it could still benefit from noting that the tool only modifies the active selection and does not report counts or results.

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 restates trait categories in natural language, which slightly reinforces the enum meanings, but it does not add parameter-level guidance beyond what the schema already provides for face_sides, non_planar_threshold, or extend.

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 verb and resource: 'Select mesh elements by geometric trait.' It then enumerates the trait categories (non-manifold edges, boundary edges, loose vertices, interior faces, faces by side count, ungrouped vertices, non-planar faces), which makes the tool's scope immediately clear and distinguishes it from generic selection siblings like blender_mesh_select 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 phrase 'Essential for finding problem areas' gives a clear use context, and the trait enumeration implies when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly compare against sibling selection tools or state when not to use it, so the agent must infer the routing decision rather than being told.

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