blender_shade_smooth

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does explain how auto-smooth works (edge angle threshold keeps sharp edges flat), adding value beyond the schema. However, it does not mention preconditions beyond object_name describing a mesh, what happens if auto_smooth_angle is supplied with FLAT or SMOOTH, or what side effects/return behavior to expect.

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 no filler. The first states the action clearly, and the second adds a valuable rationale for auto-smooth. Information is front-loaded and every word contributes.

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 three-parameter setter with a fully documented schema, the description is largely complete. It covers the operation, the three modes, and the auto-angle behavior. The main gaps are the lack of return/response details and explicit edge-case behavior, but these are minor for a straightforward shading tool.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The parameter descriptions already define shade_type, object_name, and auto_smooth_angle. The description adds conceptual context for auto-smooth but does not enrich parameter semantics meaningfully beyond 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Set smooth, flat, or auto-smooth shading on an object.' It clearly distinguishes this as a shading operation, and the three modes leave little ambiguity. It does not explicitly differentiate from related mesh-edge tools like blender_mesh_mark_sharp, but the purpose is still unmistakable.

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 a use case by saying auto-smooth is 'essential for mechanical surfaces,' which gives some guidance for choosing AUTO. However, it does not explain when to prefer SMOOTH vs FLAT or mention any alternatives or exclusions. Usage guidance is contextual but not explicit.

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