Set Mesh

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses triangle expansion to quad storage and undo behavior. Does not mention error handling or return value, but covers key mutation details.

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?

Three sentences, no redundancy. First sentence states purpose, second explains technical detail, third gives constraint. Efficient and well-organized.

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?

Covers main functional aspects and side effects (undo entry). Missing explicit mention of return value (likely void or success), but given no output schema, the description is largely complete for a mutation tool.

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 100%, but description adds: triangle expansion explanation for polygons, and constraint that omitted polygons requires matching point count. This goes beyond schema descriptions.

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 overwrites points and optionally polygons of an editable object, with specific verb 'overwrite' and resource 'editable object'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_mesh (read) and set_mesh_selection by focusing on geometry modification.

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 provides explicit condition: if polygons is omitted, points must match existing topology. It also mentions the operation is wrapped in a single undo entry, implying batch use. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the constraint is clear.

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