poly_cap_holes

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and not read-only, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds useful behavior beyond the annotations: omitting faces makes it attempt all boundary loops, and the operation fills holes with faces. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Bilingual description is compact, front-loaded with the operation, and every sentence carries useful information. The optional-input behavior is stated in one clause.

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?

For a two-optional-parameter polygon operation, the description plus schema fully specify how to invoke it: choose faces (or omit), choose objects (or use current selection). No return value is promised, and the destructive hint is already supplied by annotations.

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 already explains both faces and objects. The tool description's mention of selecting faces or omitting for all boundaries duplicates schema content rather than adding new semantic detail. Baseline 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?

States a clear verb and resource: 'Cap holes by filling them with faces' / '用面填补孔洞'. This is distinct from sibling poly operations like poly_bridge_faces or poly_extrude_faces, so an agent can tell what it does without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear context: use this operation to cap holes, and tells the caller to select faces or omit the parameter to target all boundary loops. It stops short of explicitly naming alternative tools or stating when not to use them, but the operation's scope is clear.

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