blender_edit_mesh

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description doesn't need to repeat safety info. It adds operation names but no further behavioral details beyond what annotations imply. Given the annotation coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences for purpose and usage guidelines, plus two bullet-like lines. No wasted words. Front-loaded with the primary action.

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 14 parameters, all schema-documented, and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and usage. Some operation-specific parameter interactions are implied but not detailed, yet the enum values and schema make it sufficient. Slightly less than perfect due to lack of deeper examples.

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% - all 14 parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond listing actions. Baseline 3 is correct as the schema already handles parameter semantics.

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 'Edit mesh geometry' and lists specific operations like extrude, inset, bevel, etc. It distinguishes from siblings such as blender_manage_uv and blender_modify_object by focusing on mesh topology editing.

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?

Explicitly provides 'Use this when: you need to modify mesh topology.' and 'Do NOT use for: UV operations (use blender_manage_uv), object transforms (use blender_modify_object).' This gives clear context and references alternative sibling tools.

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