Configure sculpt symmetry by enabling mirroring along X, Y, or Z axes to create symmetrical details in Blender sculpting.
Configure sculpt symmetry settings.
Args: axis_x: Mirror on X axis. axis_y: Mirror on Y axis. axis_z: Mirror on Z axis. mirror: Enable mirroring.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| axis_x | No | ||
| axis_y | No | ||
| axis_z | No | ||
| mirror | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists parameter meanings but does not explain any side effects, such as whether existing symmetry settings are overwritten, or if the tool requires sculpt mode. No mention of response behavior or errors.
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 clear opening sentence and a list of arguments. It is front-loaded and contains no filler. The structure is efficient, though it could be slightly more organized with descriptions directly attached to parameters, but it is appropriately sized.
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 (4 booleans) and the description covers the basic action and parameters. However, it omits critical context such as which object the symmetry applies to, whether sculpt mode is required, and any relation to the active sculpt object. This is a gap that an agent would need to infer.
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 provides brief explanations for each parameter ('Mirror on X axis.'), which adds some meaning beyond the schema titles. However, the explanations are minimal and do not elaborate on the interaction between parameters or defaults.
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 purpose: 'Configure sculpt symmetry settings.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and it uniquely identifies the symmetry configuration task, distinguishing it from all sibling tools since no other tool mentions symmetry.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. There is no mention of needing to be in sculpt mode or that it applies to the active object. The description only states what it does, not when or how to use it in context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.