mesh.select

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description's 'Risk: read' merely restates the read-only annotation. It adds no behavioral context about what selecting does to the active selection, whether it replaces or appends, what objects/components are affected, or any 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 short, but it is under-specified rather than concise. The opening sentence merely repeats the tool name/title and does not earn its place. The remaining sentences contain generic risk and policy boilerplate, leaving no substantive selection semantics.

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?

This is a 15-parameter tool with four distinct selection methods, yet the description provides no context for how those methods work or how the parameters relate. The output schema covers return values, but it cannot compensate for the absence of invocation semantics. An agent has no reliable way to choose between indices, spatial, connected, or normal selection.

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 only 40%, and the description contributes zero parameter meaning. The method enum values (indices, spatial, connected, normal) and fields like seedVertex, angleDegrees, min/max, and direction are left entirely unexplained. With this much schema under-coverage, the description needed to compensate and did not.

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 is essentially a tautology: it restates the command name `mesh.select` and labels it as a PartMe Blender Harness command. It never says what selecting mesh elements does, what kinds of elements can be selected, or how this differs from related mesh tools. The only added information is risk and maturity metadata, not purpose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions that per-request argument checks and session policy apply, but that is a harness requirement, not a usage guideline. No conditions, exclusions, or preferred method choices are given for the four enum methods.

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