enable_dyntopo

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that dyntopo dynamically adds/removes detail, enters sculpt mode if needed, and returns a confirmation dict. It misses potential side effects like undo limitations or performance impacts, but typical use is well covered.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose, followed by a concise paragraph on dyntopo behavior, then structured Args/Returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, parameters, return value, and the critical prerequisite of sculpt mode. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values.

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%, but the tool description fully explains each parameter: object_name (must be in sculpt mode), detail_size (range 0.1-500.0, smaller = more detail), and detail_mode (lists all four values). This adds critical meaning beyond the schema's 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 action ('Enable dynamic topology') and the resource ('adaptive sculpting'), with a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like enter_sculpt_mode or set_sculpt_brush by focusing on enabling dyntopo.

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?

The description explains that the object must be in sculpt mode or will enter it, and describes the adaptive benefit ('allows unlimited detail where needed'). However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives like remesh or multi-res, nor provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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