shade_auto_smooth

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly explains the effect (smoothing based on angle threshold) and provides default behavior. It does not mention side effects like reversibility or requirements for mesh object, but is sufficiently informative.

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 (3 sentences plus structured Args/Returns), front-loaded with the core purpose, and 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 no annotations and a simple tool, the description covers essential aspects: purpose, parameter details, and return type. It could mention that it sets auto-smooth shading mode, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand usage.

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 coverage, the description adds full meaning: object_name is the mesh object name, angle is the threshold in radians with a default of 0.523599 (~30 degrees) and valid range 0 to pi, which the schema does not provide.

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 tool applies angle-based auto-smooth shading to an object, explaining that it smooths faces based on angle between adjacent normals, which distinguishes it from general smooth shading.

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 hard-surface models but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like set_smooth_shading, nor does it provide when-not conditions or prerequisites.

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