flip_normals

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It states the core operation ('flip normals of selected faces') but does not disclose prerequisites like requiring an active face selection, whether the object must be in edit mode, or whether the operation permanently modifies the mesh. The sparse description leaves important behavioral context unstated.

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 core description is a single, front-loaded sentence with negligible fluff. The Args section is somewhat redundant with the schema, but it is short and does not add meaningful bloat. Overall it is appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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 mesh-editing tool, the description omits crucial context: face selection must be pre-established, the operation likely requires edit mode, and object_name alone does not convey the operation's dependency on scene state. With no annotations and no output schema, these gaps materially reduce an agent's ability to invoke 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?

The schema coverage is 0% and the description adds minimal value: 'Args: object_name: Object name' essentially repeats the schema's property title without clarifying semantics. It does not explain what kind of object is expected, whether it must be a mesh, or how the object relates to the selected faces. The only parameter is simple, but the description fails to enrich it.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Flip normals of selected faces.' This clearly identifies the action and scope, and it distinguishes from siblings like recalculate_normals and set_custom_normals by the word 'flip.' However, it does not explicitly name a sibling or further differentiate, so it's clear but lacks explicit sibling comparison.

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. The description implies it is for flipping normals of selected faces, but it does not mention recalculate_normals, set_custom_normals, or conditions such as edit mode or face selection prerequisites. An agent is left without explicit usage direction.

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