blender_sculpt_extract_mask

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that a new mesh is created, faces above the mask threshold are used, and thickness can be added via solidify. However, it does not state whether the original sculpt is modified, what happens to the mask afterward, or how the resulting object is named or selected.

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 three tight sentences: what the tool does, how it does it, and when it is useful. There is no filler, and the most important information is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 description and schema together cover the main inputs and mechanism, but with no output schema and no annotations, the agent is left unsure about the return value or how to reference the newly created object afterward. It also omits whether the original object is preserved, which matters for sculpting workflows.

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 some context by linking thickness to solidification and smooth_iterations to boundary smoothing, but these are already reflected in the schema parameter descriptions. No meaningful semantic detail beyond the schema is provided.

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: 'Extract the masked region of a sculpt as a separate mesh object.' It clearly states the result (a new mesh object) and differentiates from sibling sculpt and mesh tools by focusing on mask-based extraction.

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 clear context: use this when you need to extract a sculpted masked region into a standalone mesh, and it gives practical use cases like armor plates and panel lines. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool.

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