Shape preview voxels

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds real behavioral context beyond these: it is a view-mode toggle, off=true reverts to the smooth CSG view, it only affects GUI (no effect headless), and it includes fire faces. It does not explicitly state persistence or that it changes no project data, but the mode semantics are well disclosed.

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?

Front-loads the action, then covers parameters, usage ordering, and the GUI restriction in dense, purposeful sentences. The trailing '[bulc-mcp rules]' line is auto-appended boilerplate outside the author's control but slightly dilutes the close.

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 two-parameter GUI view toggle with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, both parameters, usage ordering relative to shape_screenshot, and the headless limitation. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters with defaults. The description restates size (voxel edge in metres, default 0.1) and off (returns to smooth CSG view), adding only clarifying phrasing rather than new syntax or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('switch the viewport into FDS voxel preview mode') and resource, and scopes it precisely to the Shape Studio viewport. It distinguishes itself from siblings like shape_screenshot by explaining it renders the voxelized FDS OBST result rather than the ideal CSG mesh.

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?

Explicitly says 'Call this before shape_screenshot to review the FDS result rather than the ideal mesh', naming the alternative and the selecting condition. It also gives a when-not condition: 'GUI only (no effect headless)'.

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