set_brush_property

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavior. It explains the return type and allowed value formats, but omits potential side effects, scope (active brush only), or required context (sculpt mode active). This is adequate but not thorough.

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 well-structured with Args and Returns sections, concise yet comprehensive. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the format is easy to parse.

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 setter with an output schema, the description covers the action, parameters, and return. However, it lacks mention of prerequisites (e.g., must be in sculpt mode, active object must be a mesh) and potential failure scenarios. Slightly incomplete but still helpful.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by detailing each property option and its value type/range (int 1-500, float 0.0-1.0, bool). This adds significant meaning beyond the raw 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 clearly states 'Set a property on the active sculpt brush' and lists the specific properties (size, strength, auto_smooth_factor, use_frontface), distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_sculpt_brush (which switches brush types) and set_sculpt_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?

The description implies usage for changing brush properties but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like being in sculpt mode or having an active brush. Guidance is minimal.

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