poly_flip_faces

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation risk is conveyed. The description adds that the operation flips normal orientation on selected faces and is meant to fix rendering issues, but it does not discuss reversibility or behavior on invalid face indices; with annotation coverage, this is acceptable.

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 action, and includes a bilingual English section without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool is simple, both parameters are optional and fully documented in the schema, and the description states the purpose and target. It could add behavior for the no-selection/no-objects case or contrast with poly_unify_normals, but nothing essential for a basic invocation is missing.

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%, and both parameters already carry meaningful descriptions: faces may be omitted for all, objects may be omitted for current selection. The tool description only restates 'selected faces' and adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Flip') and resource ('normals of the selected faces') and gives an explicit purpose: fixing back-facing/dark/wrongly lit surfaces. This clearly distinguishes it from related normals tools like poly_unify_normals.

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?

It gives a clear trigger: use this when selected faces are dark or incorrectly lit due to reversed normals. It does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as poly_unify_normals or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of the top bar.

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