set_vertices

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

There are no annotations to rely on, so the description must disclose behavior. It only states the action and format, omitting details like whether it replaces all vertices or only given indices, requirements on the object type, coordinate space, or error behavior. This is insufficient for a mutation 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?

The description is one sentence, front-loaded with the action, and includes the essential data format. There is no redundancy or extraneous information.

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 two-parameter tool, it is minimally viable. It explains the core action and parameter structure, but lacks behavioral details that would help an agent avoid errors (e.g., what happens if indices are invalid). The output schema exists, so return value info is not required, but other context is thin.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining the structure of the 'vertices' parameter with 'Each entry: {index: int, co: [x, y, z]}'. It does not describe 'object', but it is inferable from the context.

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 the tool's action ('Set vertex positions') and specifies the resource (vertices). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_vertices, which reads positions. The entry format adds specificity.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any prerequisites or side effects. It simply states the operation, leaving the agent without contextual cues for selection or invocation.

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