sculpt_iterate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'performs' without revealing that the tool relaxes the object, modifies state, or what side effects (e.g., irreversible changes) may occur. This is a serious gap for a mutating operation.

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 three-word sentence is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. It does not provide enough information to be useful, and the brevity undermines its value.

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 tool with three parameters, an output schema, and related siblings, this description is severely insufficient. It omits the operation's purpose beyond the name, how iterations are counted, what the state parameter affects, and how it fits into sculpting workflows.

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% with each parameter (obj, state, iterations) having a description, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, but the schema adequately explains the 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?

The description 'Performs sculpting iterations' essentially restates the tool name without specifying what sculpting iterations actually accomplish. It does not describe the effect on the object or distinguish it from sibling tools like sculpt_activate or sculpt_deactivate.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., whether sculpting must be active), and no indication of the intended workflow. The description provides no contextual usage information.

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