blender_shade_smooth

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

Annotations are present but only generic false flags (readOnly/destructive/idempotent), so the description carries some burden. It adds the behavioral nuance that auto_smooth_angle preserves sharp creases, which is helpful beyond the schema. However, it doesn't disclose side effects, reversibility, or what happens when `smooth` is false, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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?

Two tightly written sentences. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the auto_smooth_angle detail is placed as a helpful secondary clause. No filler or redundancy; every word earns its place.

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 tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core action and the key optional behavior (auto smooth). It doesn't explain return format, but the response_format parameter handles that. The main gap is the lack of explicit mapping of the `smooth` boolean, but the tool name and description largely make it inferable. Overall, adequate for a simple mutation tool.

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 description coverage is 50%, so the description should compensate for undocumented parameters. It meaningfully explains auto_smooth_angle with an example and effect, but it does not clarify `smooth` (boolean meaning) or `objects` (how to identify meshes) beyond the schema. This is partial but not full compensation.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Set smooth or flat shading on meshes') and uniquely identifies the tool among the large sibling list; no other sibling handles shading, so an agent can distinguish it easily. It also hints at the auto-smooth capability, making the purpose even more concrete.

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 gives a clear context for when to use the tool (modify shading of meshes) and provides a concrete usage tip for the auto_smooth_angle parameter ('Pass auto_smooth_angle (for example 30) to keep sharp creases'). It does not name alternatives, but no obvious sibling competes for this functionality, so the guidance is sufficient.

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