poly_move_vertices

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation behavior is covered. The description adds a useful performance characteristic ('more efficient than per-vertex calls') but does not add further context about undo, coordinate space, or side effects, which is acceptable given the 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, front-loaded with the core operation, and the efficiency comparison earns its place. The bilingual repetition is compact and does not introduce unnecessary detail.

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 simple batch-mutation tool, the description plus the fully documented schema and destructive annotation are sufficient to invoke it correctly. It does not describe return values, but the absence of an output schema and the mutation-focused nature make that gap less critical.

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 parameters (offset, objects, vertices) are already documented. The description reinforces that the offset is applied uniformly to the batch, which matches the schema, but it does not add substantial new parameter-level meaning beyond that.

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 states a specific verb and resource: move a batch of vertices by the same offset. It also explicitly contrasts itself with poly_set_vertex, making differentiation from the most relevant sibling tool unambiguous.

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 description directly names poly_set_vertex as the less efficient alternative, which signals when to prefer this batch tool. It does not spell out exclusions like 'use poly_set_vertex for a single vertex,' but the efficiency comparison is a clear and useful routing signal.

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