poly_set_vertex

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds the constraint about exactly one of position/offset and the unit context, but does not elaborate on side effects or permanence. It does not contradict annotations, but adds only limited behavioral detail beyond what annotations provide.

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 two short sentences in bilingual form, front-loading the action and constraint. There is no fluff or redundancy, and every sentence adds necessary information.

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 tool, the description covers the core behavior, the parameter constraint, and unit semantics. It does not describe the return value, but no output schema exists, and it is likely a void operation. The object parameter is documented in the schema. Overall, an agent has enough information to call the tool 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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description. The tool description adds the cross-parameter constraint that exactly one of position/offset is required, and clarifies that coordinates use the current scene unit. This is valuable semantic information not present in the schema, elevating it above the baseline of 3.

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 action (move a single vertex) and the two modes (absolute position or relative offset). It distinguishes from sibling tools like poly_move_vertices by explicitly noting 'single vertex', implying poly_move_vertices handles multiple vertices. The verb and resource are specific.

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 gives clear context on when to use this tool (for moving a single vertex) and the requirement that exactly one of position/offset must be provided. It does not explicitly name alternatives like poly_move_vertices, but the single-vertex scope implies the distinction. No exclusions are mentioned, but the context is clear.

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