set_geometry_mask

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It never states whether this replaces or extends the current mask, what values mask_type accepts, what inclusion_list does (include vs. exclude), or whether the operation is reversible — all critical for a mutation tool.

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?

A single, waste-free sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is appropriately sized, though concision here comes at the cost of missing content elsewhere.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and 0% schema descriptions, the description is far too thin. An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, but the input semantics and behavioral effects are not covered.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and mostly doesn't: it clarifies only that elements can be mesh names or UDIM numbers. The uid, mask_type, and inclusion_list parameters remain completely undefined in both schema and description.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Set a geometry mask' tells the agent exactly what changes, and the mention of 'mesh names or standard UDIM numbers' hints at the accepted element forms. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_geometry_mask, but the set/get pair is self-evident.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this instead of get_geometry_mask, no prerequisites (e.g., an open project or uid requirement), and no indication of what happens to an existing mask. The agent must infer all usage conditions.

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