inset_faces

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the effect but omits critical behavioral details: whether the operation is destructive, if it requires edit mode, what happens to selection, and error handling for invalid indices. The 'depth' parameter explanation is helpful but incomplete.

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?

Description is a single focused sentence followed by a clean parameter list. Every sentence adds value; no redundant or vague phrasing.

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?

Given no output schema and moderate complexity, the description lacks details on return value, side effects, and error conditions. It assumes familiarity with Blender's inset operation, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

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 description must compensate. It adds default values and explanations for all parameters, notably clarifying 'depth' (0=flat, positive=raised) and face_indices format. However, it does not specify the indexing scheme (0-based) or expected format beyond comma-separation.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Inset faces') and the outcome ('creating a border ring of new polygons inside each face'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'extrude_faces' and 'subdivide_mesh' by specifying a unique geometric operation.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., extrude_faces, subdivide_mesh). There is no mention of prerequisites, mesh state, or scenarios where inset is inappropriate.

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