delete_faces

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the operation's effect (creates openings/holes) and the matching rules for `where`, but says nothing about reversibility, undo/checkpoint interaction, or whether other objects are affected — notable gaps for an unannotated destructive tool.

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 moves to the filter syntax. Dense but nearly every clause is functional; the `where` enumeration is long but necessary given 0% schema coverage.

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 2-param destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the selection semantics thoroughly and warns about the whole-object alternative. It is only incomplete on behavioral matters like undo/checkpoint safety and any return value.

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 must compensate, and it does: it enumerates the `where` keys (normal with angle default 25, x/y/z ranges, box, area, index), explains that null means open, and that {} or null picks everything. Only the `object` parameter is left implicit, which is why this is not a 5.

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+resource ('Delete the picked faces of one mesh') and immediately gives the practical outcome (makes openings: doors, windows, open boxes). It explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling tool delete, which removes whole objects, so an agent can route correctly without opening a 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?

Names the alternative (delete) and the condition that selects it ('to remove whole objects'), and adds a workflow prerequisite ('Look at mesh_info first to see where the faces are'). It does not spell out when-not to use it beyond that, but the routing guidance is concrete and actionable.

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