poly_inset_faces

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

Annotations already signal mutating and destructive behavior (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true). The description adds little behavioral context beyond the core geometry effect and does not mention topology changes, selection requirements, or reversibility.

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 short, front-loaded with the operation and result, and includes a useful application hint. There is no filler or redundant restatement.

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?

Together with a fully described schema, the description is sufficient for basic understanding and invocation. It lacks some deeper context around destructive side effects and prerequisites, but the destructiveHint partially covers this.

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 baseline applies. The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides for faces, objects, and outline.

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 operation as insetting faces and explains the result: generating a smaller face inside each one. This is specific and understandable, though it does not explicitly contrast with related siblings such as poly_bevel_faces or poly_extrude_faces.

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 phrase 'Good for depressions or panels' gives an implied use case, but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No sibling alternatives are named.

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