enter_weight_paint

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden, but it only restates the core action already evident from the name. It does not mention that this changes the interaction mode, that other modes are exited, whether the specified object must be a mesh, or any other side effects. Minimal value added beyond the tool's title.

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 short, purposeful lines. No fluff; the parameter explanation is front-loaded and directly useful. Every word earns its place.

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 mode-switching tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what it does and what the parameter means. It does not mention failure conditions or mode-related side effects, but the tool is straightforward enough that the provided context is largely sufficient.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The Args section explains that object_name is the object to paint and that an empty value means the active object. This adds practical semantics beyond the schema's title and default, though it could go further (e.g., error behavior if object is invalid).

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?

States a clear verb ('enter') and a specific resource ('weight paint mode') with a stated purpose ('for rigging'), which immediately distinguishes it from siblings like enter_vertex_paint or enter_sculpt_mode. The function's intent is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'for rigging' implies the correct context (skinning/weight painting), but no alternative tools are named, nor are any exclusions or prerequisites given. The usage context is implied rather than explicitly contrasted with similar mode-switching tools.

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