poly_bridge_faces

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the mutation risk is covered. The description adds that the tool generates connecting geometry, but it does not disclose further side effects, prerequisites, or what may be irreversibly changed. This is adequate but not rich.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core action, and quick to read. The bilingual text duplicates meaning slightly, but it remains efficient and does not add unnecessary noise.

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?

The description gives enough to understand the tool's core function and typical use cases, and the schema covers all parameters. However, it does not mention important operational context such as mesh requirements, constraints on face sets, or expected failure modes, which would help an agent invoke it more safely.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents faces1, faces2, and objects. The description does not add extra parameter-level meaning, but with full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the action (bridge), the resource (two sets of faces), and the result (geometry connecting them). It is specific enough to distinguish from generic poly operations, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative such as poly_cap_holes.

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 concrete usage context: useful after holes or to build tubes. This gives the agent a clear sense of when to reach for this tool, even though it does not state explicit exclusions or alternative tools.

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