sculpt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the effects of each op, brush semantics, that parameters of another op are ignored, and that the answer contains vertices_moved. It does not explicitly state whether operations are destructive/undoable or what permissions are required, which leaves some behavioral gaps for a 14-parameter mutation tool.

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 dense but well-structured: front-loaded purpose, then brush mechanics, then each op in sequence. It is appropriately sized for a complex sculpting tool, though the parenthetical style and run-on sentences make it slightly harder to scan than ideal.

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 no annotations, no output schema, 14 parameters, and 0% schema coverage, the description is nearly complete: it covers operations, prerequisites, selection conditions, and the return value. It omits explicit definition of the required 'object' parameter and does not discuss reversibility or permissions, but an agent has enough to invoke it 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 and largely does. It explains op semantics, brush parameters (at, radius, where, spread, falloff), op-specific parameters (move, amount, factor, iterations, keep_boundary, strength), and complex where-condition keys. Only the required 'object' parameter is not explicitly defined, which is a minor gap against 14 parameters.

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 verb and resource: 'Sculpt by numbers: move the vertices under a brush.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming prerequisites (subdivide_faces) and an alternative for shading (shade). An agent can tell it apart from deform, transform_region, and shade without opening schemas.

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?

Provides clear usage context: mesh must have enough vertices, subdivide_faces first, look at mesh_info first, and use shade for shading only. It does not explicitly state when not to use sculpt versus other deformation tools like deform or transform_region, but the operational guidance is strong.

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