geometry_vertex_set

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the description is not obligated to establish that this is a mutation. It still adds real value beyond them: atomicity, undoability, rejection of invalid shapes, and the important fact that adjacent or coincident corners are not implicitly dragged along. It stops short of describing failure modes or return behavior.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core operation, then the non-propagation caveat, then atomicity/validation. No filler. It is information-dense to the point of terseness, but nothing is wasted or repeated.

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 destructive, atomic mutation taking six required parameters with zero schema documentation and no output schema, yet the description says nothing about the selection scope, what a stale map_epoch or expected_revision does, or how the result/operation status is reported. Given the tool's complexity, the definition covers the geometry semantics but leaves the transactional contract largely unexplained.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, and it only covers two of six: corner (0/1 XYZ bits) and position (0..8 in grid/8 units). request_id, map_epoch, expected_revision, and the nested selection object receive no explanation at all, even though map_epoch/expected_revision are pattern-constrained concurrency tokens whose semantics are non-obvious.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: set one logical corner (given as XYZ bits) to absolute local coordinates in grid/8 units, applied per exact nonempty leaf. This distinguishes it from the sibling geometry_face_set by operating on corners rather than faces. The phrasing is dense with domain jargon ('leaf', 'grid/8 units'), but the operation itself is identifiable.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternatives; the agent must infer from the name that geometry_face_set is the other option and when to pick one. The sentence about neighbors/coincident corners not moving implicitly defines an effect boundary rather than selection guidance. Prerequisites (an active selection, a valid map epoch) are left unstated.

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