set_vertex_positions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains that the tool modifies vertex positions and clarifies the world_space parameter. However, it does not disclose if changes are destructive, what happens on invalid input, or permissions needed. It is moderately transparent.

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 a clear purpose statement followed by a structured list of parameters and example. Every sentence adds value, and there is no wasted text.

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 the tool has no output schema, the description covers the input parameters well and explains the core functionality. It does not mention return values or error handling, but for a batch mutation tool, the essential context is present.

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 the description must compensate. It provides a full example for the 'vertices' parameter and explains world_space values. The 'name' parameter is only briefly described. Overall, it adds significant meaning beyond the schema for two of three parameters.

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 it batch-updates multiple vertex positions in a single call, and explicitly contrasts with the repeated single-vertex tool 'set_vertex_position'. This distinguishes it from its siblings effectively.

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 implies use when updating many vertices (much faster than repeated calls). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives beyond 'set_vertex_position'. The guidance is good but lacks exclusions.

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