sculpt_anatomy_pass

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

The description discloses that the tool modifies the mesh by applying anatomically-informed smoothing/displacement. However, with no annotations, it fails to inform about destructiveness (permanent changes), potential side effects, or limitations (e.g., works on any mesh type?). Some behavioral details are 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?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the purpose. The parameter list is clear but could be better formatted. Every sentence adds value without repetition.

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 the existence of an output schema (though not shown) and parameter explanations, the description is fairly complete. It covers what the tool does, its inputs, and the effect on the mesh. Missing details about prerequisites or return values are minor.

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 description adds meaningful explanations to all parameters beyond the schema's types and defaults. It defines the pass_type (primary, secondary, tertiary), body_region options, style choices, and intensity range. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: applying an anatomy-aware sculpting pass using built-in knowledge. It lists the parameters that define the pass type, body region, style, and intensity, making it distinct from other sculpt tools like sculpt_brush_full or sculpt_mask.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., mesh must be in sculpt mode) or conditions under which it is inappropriate. It simply describes the tool's function and parameters without usage context.

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