shade_object

Does 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 reveals only that it 'sets' shading mode but does not explain effects on rendering, normals, object selection requirements, reversibility, or whether it affects one object or the active object. This is a meaningful gap 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 short and front-loaded, with a direct one-line purpose followed by a minimal Args list. Every sentence earns its place, though it is somewhat terse and could include a brief usage note without bloat.

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, but without annotations or an output schema, the description leaves out behavioral context that would help an agent call it correctly, such as selection requirements and the distinction between object shading and viewport shading. It is minimally viable but not fully complete.

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 Args section adds value beyond the schema by explaining 'name' means object name and 'shading' accepts FLAT or SMOOTH, which the schema does not enumerate. However, it does not clarify whether the object must be selected, whether shading is optional despite the schema default, or what invalid values would do, so coverage is only partially compensated.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Set shading mode for an object.' It is specific enough to distinguish from most siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate from set_viewport_shading, which could be confused on its surface.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_viewport_shading, smooth_vertices, or material-related tools. The description only states what it does, not the context or selection criteria for choosing it.

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