remesh_sculpt

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral consequences on its own. It says 'Remesh' but does not warn that remeshing is destructive – it replaces the mesh topologyatically and discards UVs, vertex colors, modifiers, or other associated data. It also does not mention that an object must be active or mesh-typedags. For a mutation tool, such disclosure is expected and absent.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a structured Args list. Every sentence provides necessary information, there is no repetition of schema defaults, and the structure makes parameters easy to scan. It is exactly as concise as it needs to be.

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 tool with only three optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core action and parameter meanings. But it lacks behavioral warnings, usage context, and any statement about expected results or return values. An agent can call it correctly on a basic level, but may be surprised by destructive side effects or uncertain about when to invoke it.

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 description must compensate. It does provide one-line explanations for each parameter (mode, voxel_size, smooth_iterations), which adds meaning beyond bare names and types. However, it omits important details like units for voxel_size, valid ranges, and that smooth_iterations only matters in SMOOTH mode. This is adequate but not thorough compensation.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Remesh') and resource ('active object'), scoped with 'for sculpting'. This clearly states the tool's function and is distinct from any sibling tool – there is no other remesh tool in the list, while smooth_vertices or configure_dyntopo are conceptually different operations. It could be a 5 if it explicitly named alternatives, but the unique action makes the purpose 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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like configure_dyntopo or smooth_vertices. The phrase 'for sculpting' only implies a broad context, but there are no prerequisites, no exclusions, and no statement about choosing between VOXEL and SMOOTH modes. An agent is left to infer when remeshing is appropriate.

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