ft_sculpt_shape_key

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

No annotations exist, so the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that vertices are displaced in a face region, shape keys are created if missing, and parameters like direction and intensity affect the outcome. It does not mention required mode (e.g., sculpt mode) or potential side effects, but overall provides good transparency.

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 concise (3 sentences + bulleted Args) and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value, and the structured Args list is easy to parse.

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?

With no output schema, the description omits what the tool returns (e.g., success indicator). It covers input semantics well but lacks info on error conditions or return value. For a 6-parameter tool, it is mostly complete but missing return behavior.

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?

The input schema has no descriptions for its 6 parameters, so the description's Args section adds full value. Each parameter (mesh_name, shape_key_name, region, direction, intensity, falloff) is explained with values and constraints, enabling correct invocation.

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?

Description clearly states the tool performs 'AI-guided shape key sculpting via vertex displacement' to 'create or refine a blend shape'. It uses a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes from sibling tools like ft_combine_shape_keys and ft_mirror_shape_key.

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 notes the tool 'can be called multiple times to build up complex expressions', implying iterative use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternative tools for different scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage boundaries from context.

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