mesh-shade_smooth

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. The description clearly states the tool toggles shading, implying a mutation of object state. However, it does not mention if the operation is reversible (toggle implies yes), requires object selection, or has any side effects. Without annotations, more detail would be beneficial, but the core behavior is clear.

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 a single sentence with zero fluff. It is highly concise and effectively front-loaded with the action. It earns its place by providing clear purpose without any waste.

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?

This is a simple tool with two optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is adequate for understanding the basic function, but it lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., must be a mesh object), potential failure modes (e.g., object not being a mesh), and any side effects beyond toggling. Given the simplicity, a 3 is appropriate as it covers the essentials but misses some operational details.

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%, meaning the description must explain parameters. The description provides minimal information about parameters: the object defaults to active, and the 'smooth' parameter defaults to true Determination. However, it does not elaborate on what 'smooth' means beyond the schema's title. Since schema titles already explain the parameters well (e.g., 'Smooth shading when true, flat when false'), the description adds the default behavior, which is helpful for a 0% coverage scenario.

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 states exactly what the tool does: 'Toggle smooth/flat shading on the object'. It uses a specific verb ('toggle') and resource ('shading'), and clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'mesh-recalc_normals' or 'shading-*' tools, which deal with materials and shaders. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 context: it is for toggling shading on a mesh object, which is clear enough. However, it does not specify when to use this vs alternatives (e.g., when to use 'mesh-recalc_normals' instead), nor any exclusions like only meshes. There is implicit guidance but no explicit 'when not to use'.

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