blender_sculpt_multires_reshape

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and handles it well: each of the six actions names its effect (adds/removes/rebuilds/applies/deletes), including the destructive nature of UNSUBDIVIDE, DELETE_HIGHER, DELETE_LOWER, and APPLY_BASE. Missing are failure modes (e.g., unsubdividing at level 1) and whether APPLY_BASE irreversibly bakes changes.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler: the purpose statement is front-loaded, and each action receives a compact behavioral clause. The description is dense but every clause earns its place.

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 six-mode mutating tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core semantics of every action but omits error conditions, prerequisites beyond the schema's hint, and important consequences such as data loss or the irreversibility of APPLY_BASE. Adequate for basic selection, but an agent is left guessing about edge cases.

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% for both parameters, and the description adds real value beyond the schema by explaining what each action enum value actually does — the schema's 'Action to perform on the multires modifier' provides no per-value semantics. object_name is already self-explanatory in the schema.

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?

States a specific resource ('multiresolution modifier levels for sculpting') and enumerates all six action variants with their precise effects. The action breakdown makes it clearly distinct from generic modifier tools like blender_modifier_configure and from blender_mesh_subdivide.

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 — when sculpting workflows require managing multires levels — but never explicitly contrasts it with overlapping siblings such as blender_modifier_configure, blender_mesh_subdivide, or blender_bake_from_multires. An agent must infer the boundary from the action names rather than being told.

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