configure_sculpt_brush

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It merely says 'Configure' and lists parameters, but does not state whether sculpt mode is required, how existing brush settings are affected, whether the change is persistent, or what happens if no active sculpt brush exists.

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 compact and well-structured: a decisive lead sentence followed by a concise parameter list. Every line earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 description covers the core action and all parameters, but it omits important context such as the need to be in sculpt mode, the effect on an active object, and any behavioral expectations around invalid states. The absence of annotations and output schema makes these gaps more noticeable, though the tool itself is relatively simple.

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 0%, so the Args block adds meaningful information for all four parameters, including brush name examples, size semantics, and strength range. Some entries like 'auto_masking: Enable auto masking' are close to tautological, but overall it compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 opening sentence 'Configure the active sculpt brush' clearly identifies a specific verb and resource. It conveys what the tool does and is distinguishable from broader sculpt tools like enter_sculpt_mode or configure_dyntopo, though it does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate itself from.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites such as being in sculpt mode or having an active sculpt object. The phrase 'active sculpt brush' indirectly implies context, but the description leaves the usage conditions to inference.

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