inset_faces

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the empty/default thickness (0.02 m) and its adaptation to small objects (<0.3 m), the negative-depth convention as a recess, and per-face vs grouped execution. It stops short of stating whether the operation is destructive, reversible, or requires any auth/side-effect warnings.

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 the core verb, and the dense `where` documentation is warranted given 0% schema coverage. The prose is packed but each clause adds needed selection or behavioral detail; the single multi-line paragraph is slightly heavy to parse.

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 5-param, no-annotation, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description is nearly self-sufficient: parameters, defaults, and the selection DSL are covered. The only unanswered question is the return/result behavior and any effect on the pre-existing mesh.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: thickness, depth, and individual are all explained with defaults and semantics, and the complex `where` object is fully documented (keys, formats, null/missing behavior). Only `object` is left implicit, which is self-evident.

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 ('Inset the picked faces'), immediately distinguishing it from sibling face tools like extrude_faces or subdivide_faces. It also clarifies the core modifiers (thickness, depth, individual) in the first two sentences.

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?

Gives clear operational context: default thickness behavior, sign convention for depth, and the meaning of individual. It also prescribes a prerequisite workflow ('Look at mesh_info first'). It does not, however, explicitly contrast when to choose inset over extrude_faces or subdivide_faces.

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