blender_mesh_split

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add useful behavior: it 'creates hard boundaries' and works 'by duplicating shared vertices,' implying an in-place mesh mutation. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, whether the operation is destructive, or if specific mesh selection states are required.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the operation, scope, and key behavioral outcome. Every phrase earns its place, and there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 description explains the operation and mechanism well enough for a simple mesh edit, but with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves out some context such as mutability caveats, error behavior, or how the result is reflected. Still, for a 3-parameter tool with full schema coverage, it is minimally adequate.

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 all three parameters. The description's mention of 'edges or faces' aligns with the mode enum but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('split') and resource ('edges or faces'), and explicitly clarifies that it operates 'within the mesh' and does NOT separate into a new object. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like blender_object_separate and blender_mesh_separate_selected.

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 'without separating into a new object' provides clear context and rules out the main alternative use case. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use other mesh editing tools, but it does set an exclusion boundary that helps an agent select it correctly.

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