delete_faces

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: what the operation produces (openings), how the selector behaves ({} or null picks everything), and the default angle of 25 degrees. It does not cover reversibility or failure modes, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and the sibling distinction, then the selector grammar. Dense but every clause is load-bearing for a 0%-coverage schema. Slightly long for a single paragraph, which keeps it off a 5.

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 output schema and only two params, the description supplies what an agent needs: destructiveness, the prerequisite inspection step, and complete selector syntax. Minor gaps remain around whether the deletion is undoable and what is returned on success.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it does: it enumerates every `where` key (normal with angle default, x/y/z ranges with null-as-open, box, area, index), states the AND semantics of 'all given keys must hold', and defines the empty-selector case. Only `object` is left implicit, which is trivially inferable as the mesh name.

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 and resource (delete faces of one mesh) and immediately clarifies the effect ('makes openings: doors, windows, open boxes'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling `delete` by scope (faces vs whole objects), so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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 routes the agent to the alternative: 'Use delete to remove whole objects.' It also gives a prerequisite ('Look at mesh_info first to see where the faces are'). No explicit when-not-to-use beyond the sibling comparison, so short of the top band.

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