poly_delete_faces

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true)Skip, and the description adds useful specifics: isolated vertices are removed and topology is destroyed. This goes beyond the binary annotation and informs the agent of side effects. 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?

The description is brief and front-loads the core action. It repeats in two languages, which is acceptable for the target audience. The bolded topology warning earns its place. Nothing extraneous, though the bilingual duplication could be seen as slight redundancy.

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's moderate complexitydean, annotations, and complete schema, the description covers the essential behavior and warns about destructive consequences. It does not mention undo or return format, but no output schema exists and annotations already carry the destructive flag. For a deletion operation, this is sufficiently complete.

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% for both parameters ('faces', 'objects'), so the schema already explains them. The description repeats 'faces' but does not add extra detail about index format or object selection semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter load.

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 the operation: 'Delete the selected faces' and adds the specific behavior that isolated vertices are removed. It is distinct from sibling tools like poly_detach_faces (which detaches rather than deletes) and poly_remove_vertices (which targets vertices). The warning about topology destruction further clarifies the outcome.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when deletion is appropriate, prerequisites (e.g., editable poly state), or any context where this should be avoided. Sibling tools exist such as poly_detach_faces or poly_remove_vertices, but no comparison is made.

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