apply_sculpt_mask

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the conversion but doesn't disclose whether the sculpt mask is deleted, whether the vertex group is created fresh or overwritten, whether the object must be a mesh, or what happens if no sculpt mask exists. The default vertex_group name 'SculptMask' is in the schema, not the description, so the description adds minimal behavioral context.

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 a single, short sentence that is easy to parse. It is appropriately sized for a simple conversion tool. However, it could have included a bit more context without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema and 2 parameters, the description is too thin. It doesn't explain the object parameter, the vertex_group parameter, or the behavior when the mask is missing. The output schema exists but the description doesn't reference what the tool returns. For a tool that converts a sculpt mask, an agent needs to know prerequisites and side effects.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It doesn't explain what 'object' means (the target object name?) or what 'vertex_group' means (the name of the resulting group, with default 'SculptMask'). The description only mentions the conversion, not the parameters. With 2 params and 0% coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 'Convert sculpt mask to a vertex group' clearly states the action (convert) and the resource (sculpt mask) and the result (vertex group). It is concise and specific. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like create_vertex_group or set_vertices, but the verb 'convert' and the source 'sculpt mask' make the purpose clear enough.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., object must be in sculpt mode or have a sculpt mask), nor does it say when not to use it. Sibling tools like create_vertex_group or set_vertices exist, but no differentiation is provided.

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