mark_sharp

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully explains the operation: setting or clearing sharp marks and their effect on shading. It does not mention prerequisites like edit mode but is otherwise transparent.

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 concise, front-loads the action, and uses a clear docstring format with Args and Returns sections. Every sentence is informative and 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?

For a simple tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core functionality and parameter meaning well. It lacks mention of requirements like mesh being in edit mode or auto-smooth enabled, but overall is sufficient.

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?

Since schema coverage is 0%, the description provides complete semantics for both parameters: object_name (mesh name) and clear (default false, clear if true). It explains the effect of each, adding value beyond 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 uses specific verbs 'mark' and 'clear' with the resource 'sharp edges', and explains their purpose for auto-smooth shading. It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling mesh editing tools.

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 states when to use the tool (to control auto-smooth shading) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide direct alternatives. However, the use case is clear from the explanation.

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