sculpt_activate

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the agent knows it mutates state. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't explain that this puts the session into a persistent mode that changes how later edits behave, nor that the mode remains active until deactivated. For a stateful mode toggle that is the key behavioral fact, and it is missing.

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?

A single short sentence that is front-loaded with the action and free of padding. Its brevity is close to under-specification rather than verbosity, but as structure it is clean.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the sole parameter is fully documented in the schema. What is missing is the mode lifecycle context — that activating implies a later deactivate and interacts with sculpt_iterate — which matters for a session-state tool even a small one.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter 'obj' is documented as 'Object to enable real-space sculpting on', which is essentially the same information the description conveys. With the schema doing the heavy lifting and only one parameter, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; no format or naming constraints are added.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: it activates sculpting mode on an object, which is concretely different from generic commands like 'set' or 'as'. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closely related siblings sculpt_deactivate and sculpt_iterate, so an agent must guess which of the three applies.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says when sculpting is preferable to simply editing coordinates with alter/alter_state, and nothing points to sculpt_deactivate for exiting the mode or sculpt_iterate for applying a step. Usage is only implied by the verb.

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