sculpt_brush_full

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It implies mesh modification but does not state that the operation is destructive, requires sculpt mode, or what side effects occur (e.g., undo stack, symmetry behavior). The description lacks critical behavioral context.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement at the start and parameters listed in a readable format. It is not overly verbose, though some parameter lists could be shortened.

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?

Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description does not mention return values or success/failure. It omits prerequisites (e.g., model must be in sculpt mode), side effects, and behavioral constraints. For a complex tool with 14 parameters, this is insufficient.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It covers most key parameters (brush_type, falloff, direction, stroke_points, radius, strength, etc.) but misses others like mesh_name, use_symmetry_x/y/z, and auto_smooth default meaning. It adds context but is incomplete.

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 it is a 'Professional sculpt brush with ALL 30+ brush types and full parameter control.' It lists the brush types, falloff, and parameters, distinguishing it from sibling tools like sculpt_brush_stroke which likely have less control.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., sculpt_brush_stroke, sculpt_mask). There is no mention of prerequisites such as the mesh needing to be in sculpt mode, nor when not to use it.

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