poly_ring_select

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating operation. The description adds minimal behavioral detail beyond 'keep the edge sub-object selection,' which is ambiguous (does it preserve current selection or just the sub-object mode?). It does not contradict annotations, but it does not substantially enrich them.

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?

Two concise sentences (bilingual) that front-load the primary action and immediately name the sibling tool for contrast. No fluff, every sentence adds value.

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 selection tool, the description covers the core functionality. It omits details like error handling or prerequisites (e.g., object must be editable poly), but these are implied by the poly_* family and the schema covers the parameter behavior. With annotations and schema, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 both parameters (edges and objects) are already documented. The description adds no additional parameter details or usage nuances beyond what the schema states, so it does not go beyond the baseline.

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 the tool selects an edge ring containing the given edges and preserves the edge sub-object selection. It explicitly distinguishes itself from poly_loop_select by noting it is complementary and perpendicular, which helps an agent pick the right tool without examining schemas.

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 names poly_loop_select as the sibling for loop selection and implies this tool is for ring selection. It does not state explicit when-not-to-use conditions or prerequisites (e.g., editable poly requirement), but the complementary/perpendicular note provides clear routing context.

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