poly_target_weld

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds the behavioral nuance that the vertex moves onto the target (rather than averaging), which is useful. However, it does not disclose the role of the threshold parameter, whether the vertex is merged/deleted, or any side effects on the object's vertex count, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 concise—two sentences (one per language) with no fluff. It front-loads the core behavior and the distinguishing contrast with the sibling. Every word serves a purpose, and the bilingual format is appropriately compact.

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?

The tool is a destructive operation with 4 parameters, but the description does not explain the threshold parameter's function or any prerequisites (e.g., editable poly objects, vertex indices validity). The contrast with the sibling is helpful, but critical details like what the threshold controls and whether the vertex is merged or just moved are missing. Given the annotations cover the destructive nature, the description is incomplete for an agent to fully understand the operation's semantics.

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% with all parameters described in both languages. The description reiterates the roles of 'vertex' and 'target' but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It does not explain the threshold parameter's effect or the objects parameter's default behavior beyond the schema. Thus, it meets the baseline for a fully documented schema without adding extra semantic value.

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 operation: target-weld a vertex onto a specific target vertex so the result lands exactly on the target. It explicitly contrasts with poly_weld_vertices (which averages), making its purpose distinct and unambiguous. The bilingual text reinforces the intent without ambiguity.

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 the alternative poly_weld_vertices and clarifies when to use this tool (when a specific landing point is required) versus the averaging behavior of the sibling. It does not provide broader guidance like prerequisites or when not to use it, but the explicit contrast gives sufficient context for selection.

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