sculpt_detail_flood

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. It does not disclose side effects such as permanent mesh modification, undoability, or potential performance impacts. Only states the basic 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?

Two short paragraphs with a clear first sentence. The args list is structured. Every sentence adds value, no filler. Front-loaded with purpose.

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 2 parameters and no output schema, description covers basic requirements but lacks details on effect on existing geometry, return value, or undo behavior. Could be more comprehensive.

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 description adds meaning. It explains mesh_name as 'Name of the mesh object (must be in sculpt mode with dyntopo)' and detail_size as 'Target detail size (smaller = finer).' This goes beyond schema which only defines types and defaults.

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 'Flood-fill detail for uniform resolution in dynamic topology sculpting.' It specifies the action (flood-fill detail) and resource (mesh in sculpt mode with dyntopo), and distinguishes from sibling like sculpt_detail_adaptive.

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 explicitly notes prerequisites: 'must be in sculpt mode with dyntopo.' It implies use for uniform resolution but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives like sculpt_detail_adaptive.

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