sculpt_detail_adaptive

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as destructiveness, prerequisites (e.g., sculpt mode), side effects, or what happens to existing detail. The actions imply mesh modification, but details are lacking.

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 well-structured: a brief intro followed by a bulleted list of actions. Every sentence is informative without redundancy.

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, the description does not mention return values or what the tool outputs (e.g., for 'info' action). Prerequisites like mesh mode are omitted. With no annotations, the description should provide more context for a tool modifying mesh topology.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant value by explaining the 'action' parameter with a bulleted list of options, 'target_density' as edge length with auto-calculate behavior, and 'detail_regions' as a JSON array with structure. However, the required 'mesh_name' parameter is not described.

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: 'Adaptive detail control — add resolution where needed.' It lists specific actions (auto_detail, add_detail_sphere, etc.) which distinguish it from sibling tools like sculpt_remesh or decimate.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lists actions but does not explain contexts or exclusions, nor does it differentiate from siblings like sculpt_remesh or subdivide.

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