blender_mesh_subdivide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core subdivision action and selective scope, but does not mention that the operation mutates mesh geometry, whether it must run in edit mode, whether results are destructive or undoable, or what happens when edge_indices is omitted. The wording 'selected edges/faces' also does not align cleanly with the schema's edge_indices-only parameter.

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 short and front-loaded with the primary action. The second sentence adds a useful scope qualifier. There is mild redundancy between 'add resolution' and 'add geometry,' but overall every sentence earns its place and the description is 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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more operational context. It does not explain selection requirements, the result of omitting edge_indices, failure states, or how the 'faces' part of the description maps to the available parameters. The schema provides parameter detail, but the description is too thin to fully guide correct invocation for a mutating mesh tool.

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 parameters are already well documented and the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond noting selective subdivision, and its mention of 'faces' is not reflected in the schema, which only exposes edge_indices. Still, the schema fully covers the five parameters.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Subdivide selected edges/faces to add resolution.' It also clarifies scope with 'without subdividing the entire mesh,' which helps distinguish it from whole-mesh subdivision operations. It does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools like loop_cut or bevel, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 'Add geometry where needed without subdividing the entire mesh' implies selective/local use cases but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like blender_mesh_loop_cut, blender_mesh_bevel, or blender_mesh_dissolve. There is no when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives, leaving usage largely to inference.

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