blender_mesh_separate_selected

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, but it only states the core operation. It does not disclose whether the source object loses the separated faces, whether the original remains intact, where the new object is placed, or how default naming works. The description also says "selected faces" while the schema requires explicit face_indices, leaving ambiguity about whether it uses current selection or supplied indices.

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, front-loaded sentence that communicates the main action immediately. The examples after the em dash add context without being bloated, though they are somewhat redundant with the core statement.

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 mutating mesh operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It omits side effects on the source object, the default behavior when new_name is omitted, whether the operation is reversible, and what the tool returns. An agent would need to infer important operational details from the tool name and parameters.

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 parameter names and descriptions already explain object_name, face_indices, and new_name. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, which is acceptable but not additive.

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 action and resource: "Separate selected faces into a new object." The em-dash extension clarifies the intent as extracting parts into independent objects. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like blender_object_separate or blender_mesh_split.

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 description implies usage through examples like "extract body panels, components, or regions into independent objects," giving some context for when the tool is appropriate. It does not state when to prefer this over blender_object_separate, blender_mesh_split, or blender_object_duplicate, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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