poly_loop_select

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

The description describes only a selection operation, yet the annotations declare destructiveHint=true, which is a direct contradiction. No explanation is provided for when or why this tool could be destructive, leaving the agent with conflicting signals about the tool's side effects.

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 and the core action is front-loaded. The bilingual duplication is somewhat redundant for an AI agent, but it is compact and contains no significant filler.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not mention return values, failure modes, preconditions, or what happens to an existing selection. The destructive annotation contradiction also makes the behavioral context incomplete for safe invocation.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters at 100% coverage, so the description adds little beyond what is structured. It does not provide extra detail about edge-index format, object-name resolution, or selection behavior 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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: select an edge loop containing the given edges while preserving the edge sub-object selection. This is enough to distinguish from most sibling tools, though the English phrase 'ring of edges' blurs the loop/ring distinction and does not explicitly contrast with poly_ring_select.

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 practical context ('quick way to grab a ring of edges around a model') and mentions seed edges, but it does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. With poly_ring_select as a sibling, explicit differentiation would be valuable.

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