blender_sculpt_setup

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It mentions that MULTIRES 'adds subdivision levels' and DYNTOPO 'enables dynamic topology,' but does not warn about potentially destructive changes to the mesh, whether existing modifiers are affected, whether the mode switch is reversible, or what happens to the object's current state.

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 efficient, using two sentences to convey the purpose, supported modes, and symmetry capability. It is front-loaded with the primary action and wastes no words.

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 tool with six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is not complete enough. It omits important context such as default behavior when mode is not specified, whether the tool requires a previously created object, what side effects occur on existing mesh data, and what the user can expect after invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds a small amount of interpretive value, such as 'adaptive detail' for DYNTOPO and 'mirrored sculpting' for symmetry axes, but most of what it says about modes and parameters duplicates the schema definitions rather than providing significant new meaning.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Enter sculpt mode with configuration.' It names the three supported modes and symmetry configuration, making the tool's scope understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling sculpt tools, but the 'setup' positioning is reasonably distinct from operations like blender_sculpt_mesh_filter.

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 this tool is used before performing sculpting operations, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of prerequisites such as the object needing to exist or being a mesh, nor any direction to use a different tool for sculpting edits versus setup.

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