set_sculpt_brush

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

The idempotentHint annotation already tells the agent that repeated calls are safe, and the description adds the active-brush state change plus the valid brush list. However, it does not clarify the semantics of nullable radius/strength parameters, such as whether null means 'leave unchanged' or 'reset to default.'

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, with the main action front-loaded and the allowed brushes listed directly. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema plus an idempotentHint annotation, so extensive behavior explanation is not required. Still, the description omits the null/omission semantics for the optional settings and any sculpt-mode prerequisite, which are the most relevant details for calling the tool correctly.

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 fully compensates for brush by listing legal values, but radius and strength are only covered by the generic phrase 'and settings.' No units, ranges, allowed values, or null behavior are provided for these two parameters, leaving their meaning mostly to name inference.

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 opens with a specific action and object: 'Set the active sculpt brush and settings,' clearly identifying the tool's function. It also enumerates all accepted brush values, so the agent knows exactly what kinds of input are valid. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling sculpting tools like enter_sculpt_mode or remesh.

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 use case is implied: call this when the active sculpt brush or its settings need to change. However, it does not state prerequisites such as whether sculpt mode must already be active, and it does not mention any alternative tool or condition for choosing a sibling. Guidance is therefore present but only implicit.

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