poly_remove_vertices

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds crucial specifics: deleting a vertex also deletes its adjacent faces and destroys topology. This goes beyond the generic annotation and warns the agent about irreversible 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, front-loaded, and uses bold to highlight the destructive consequence. The bilingual duplication is slightly redundant but acceptable and still economical. No filler sentences.

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 destructive mutation tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential risk information and covers the face-deletion behavior. Combined with the complete parameter schema, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly, though no explicit mention of alternatives or undo behavior is made.

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 is 3. The description does not add new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already states for 'vertices' and 'objects', but it does clarify the behavioral meaning of removing vertices.

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 the specific verb 'Delete' and resource 'vertices', and immediately clarifies the cascading effect on faces. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like poly_delete_faces and poly_weld_vertices, even without naming them.

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 use case is implied: use this when you intend to remove vertices. The warning 'confirm the consequences first' provides context, but the description does not mention when not to use it or point to alternatives such as poly_weld_vertices for non-destructive vertex operations.

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