blender_mesh_mark_sharp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It does convey the core effect of sharp-edge marking on normals, which is useful. However, it does not disclose side effects, selection precedence behavior, or whether the operation modifies data persistently, 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?

The description is two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the operation and the second provides the rationale/behavioral context. The key information is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 simple mesh-editing tool, the description plus fully documented schema is largely sufficient. It explains the purpose, the parameter semantics are covered by the schema, and there is no output schema requiring return-value documentation. It could be more complete by noting possible prerequisites or side effects, but the core callable behavior is clear.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents all four parameters including edge_indices, selected_only, clear, and object_name. The description adds no additional parameter detail beyond referring generally to 'specific edges,' so it does not need to compensate and lands at the baseline.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Mark or clear sharp edges.' It also explains the purpose of sharp edges ('override auto-smooth angle for precise normal control on specific edges'), which clearly distinguishes this tool from related mesh-editing siblings like mark_seam or crease.

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 when to use the tool by explaining that sharp edges override auto-smooth angle for precise normal control on specific edges. However, it never explicitly compares it to alternatives or states when not to use it, such as when needing seams or creases instead.

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