recalculate_normals

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it recalculates normals, without mentioning that it modifies the object in place, whether it respects existing custom normals or sharp edges, or any side effects. This is minimal for a mutating operation.

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 extremely concise, with a single purpose sentence followed by parameter explanations. It is front-loaded with the purpose and contains no fluff. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices behavioral detail, but for structure and conciseness it is appropriate.

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 simple with two parameters and no output schema, but the description lacks essential context: it doesn't specify that the object must be a mesh, what happens if it isn't, or how it differs from flip_normals and set_custom_normals. An agent might call it incorrectly or choose the wrong tool without this information.

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 has zero description coverage, so the description must explain the parameters. It does so effectively: 'object_name: Object name' and 'outside: If True, normals point outward.' This adds meaning beyond the schema's type and title, clarifying the purpose of each parameter, though it omits the default for outside (which is in the schema).

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 tool's action: 'Recalculate normals of a mesh.' The verb 'recalculate' and the resource 'normals of a mesh' precisely define the operation, and it distinguishes from siblings like flip_normals (which flips rather than recomputes) and set_custom_normals (which sets explicit normals).

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like flip_normals or set_custom_normals. The description lacks any context about prerequisites (e.g., the object must be a mesh) or scenarios where this is preferred over sibling tools.

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