recalculate_normals

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

No annotations provided; description does not disclose if tool modifies object in place, is destructive, requires specific mode (e.g., edit mode), or other behavioral traits. Only states it recalculates normals and returns a confirmation dict.

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?

Description is short and includes a structured Args section. No extra fluff, but could be more structured with bullet points. Efficient overall.

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?

Tool has an output schema, so return value explanation is sufficient as confirmation dict. However, lacks prerequisites (e.g., object must be a mesh), mode requirements, or details on scope (per face or overall). Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 has 0% description coverage, but description adds Args section clarifying object_name as 'Name of the mesh object' and inside as controlling normals direction. Adds moderate value beyond schema titles.

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?

Description clearly states the tool recalculates face normals to make them consistent (outward or inward), with a note about fixing shading artifacts. It differentiates from sibling 'flip_normals' by focusing on consistency rather than simple flipping.

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?

Description implies use for meshes with flipped/inconsistent normals causing shading artifacts, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and does not mention alternatives like flip_normals.

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