blender_mesh_crease

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully explains how crease values affect subdivision results, which goes beyond a bare 'set crease values.' However, it does not mention prerequisites such as a subdivision modifier, side effects, or reversibility of the mutation.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the main action, and uses the second sentence to add operational value. There is no redundant filler; the 'hard surface modeling tool' framing is brief and informative.

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?

The core behavior and parameter meanings are adequately covered, and the schema documents all parameters. However, with no annotations and many similar mesh-editing siblings, the description could clarify selection precedence (edge_indices vs selected_only), the need for a subdivision modifier, and how crease differs from mark_sharp. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds practical meaning to the crease_value parameter by giving concrete visual outcomes ('keeps edges sharp through subdivision', 'softer feature lines'). The remaining parameters are already well documented in the schema, so no further compensation is needed.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Set edge crease values for subdivision surface control.' It clearly identifies the tool's domain (hard surface modeling) and operation. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from the closely related blender_mesh_mark_sharp sibling, but the purpose is still 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 provides clear usage context: it is for subdivision surface control and is framed as the hard surface modeling tool. It gives practical guidance on value selection ('crease=1.0 keeps edges sharp... crease=0.5 creates softer feature lines'). It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but the intended scenario is clear enough.

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