blender_sculpt_face_set_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains what the tool does and describes each criterion's grouping behavior, but it does not disclose side effects such as whether existing face sets are replaced, appended, or otherwise affected.

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 compact and front-loaded: the main action comes first, followed by a concise enumeration of all criteria. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 two-parameter tool with a fully described enum and a clear sculpting use case, the description is nearly complete. It lacks only explicit notes about existing face-set behavior and prerequisites, which are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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, but the description adds meaningful enrichment by explaining each enum value: LINKED, MATERIAL, NORMAL, SHARP_EDGES, and UV_ISLAND. This goes beyond the schema's terse 'Criteria for creating face sets.'

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: 'Create face sets by grouping faces based on criteria.' It also clearly distinguishes itself from sibling sculpt and mesh tools by focusing on face-set partitioning for isolated sculpting.

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 states the intended use case: face sets partition the mesh into regions for isolated sculpting. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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