merge_by_distance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states that vertices are merged based on distance, but does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, how it affects UVs/normals, or that it modifies the mesh in-place. The description lacks sufficient detail for an agent to understand side effects.

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 description is concise with two front-loaded sentences. Every word is necessary, and there is no redundancy.

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 simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is somewhat adequate but missing key context like the requirement that the target must be a mesh object and the exact meaning of threshold (e.g., world units). It provides a use case but not complete operational context.

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. It only mentions 'threshold distance' without explaining that 'name' likely refers to the mesh object or clarifying the threshold's unit/range. The parameter 'name' is not described at all.

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 'Merge vertices that are closer than the threshold distance', specifying the verb (merge), resource (vertices), and condition (closer than threshold). It also distinguishes from siblings like boolean_operation by noting it is useful for cleanup after boolean operations.

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?

The description advises when to use the tool: 'for cleaning up duplicate vertices after boolean operations'. This provides context, though it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternative tools.

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