set_edge_crease

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

The description discloses that the tool sets crease values on all edges and provides the value range, but with no annotations, it does not mention whether the operation is destructive or if it overwrites existing crease data. It is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 and well-structured: a clear purpose sentence, a brief explanation of crease values, then a simple args/returns format. 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 low complexity of the tool (2 parameters, no nested objects), the description fully covers the purpose, parameters, and return type. It is complete and does not require additional context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning: it clarifies object_name as the mesh object name and specifies the value range (-1 to 1) and default behavior (default 1). This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 verb (set), resource (edge crease value), and scope (all edges on a mesh object) for subdivision surface control. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like bevel_edges or mark_sharp by focusing specifically on crease values for subdivision.

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 controlling sharpness with a Subdivision Surface modifier, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as beveling or marking sharp edges. No guidance on when not to use it is provided.

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