inset_faces

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

Annotations already declare the destructive/open-world profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: default thickness (0.02 m, less on objects under 0.3 m), the meaning of negative depth (a recess), and the per-face semantics of individual=true. It does not explain reversibility or result format, but it earns credit for the defaults and recess semantics.

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 core operation (thickness/depth/individual) is front-loaded, and the longer `where` clause is dense but justified given the zero schema coverage. Slightly run-on, but essentially every sentence earns its place.

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 destructive mesh-edit tool with annotations covering safety, no output schema needed, and an undocumented schema, the description supplies the operation, its defaults, and a full `where` grammar. An agent has everything required to call it correctly.

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 carries the full burden and does so well: it documents `thickness` defaults, `depth` sign convention, `individual`, and exhaustively the `where` filter keys (normal with angle default 25, x/y/z ranges with null-open, box, area, index, and {} / null meaning everything). This is strong compensation for the empty schema.

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 opens with a precise verb+resource ('Inset the picked faces') and immediately specifies the operative parameters (`thickness`, `depth`, `individual`). This is clearly distinct from siblings like extrude_faces or bevel_edges — an agent can tell it apart without opening any 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?

It gives a useful prerequisite hint ('Look at mesh_info first to see where the faces are'), which is a genuine workflow cue. However, it never states when to choose this over alternatives such as extrude_faces or bevel_edges, nor any when-not conditions, so usage is only implied.

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