sculpt_layer_workflow

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior but only lists actions and parameter ranges. It does not explain side effects (e.g., whether 'create' is idempotent), error conditions, or impacts on existing layers. The 'flatten' action is briefly explained but others lack detail.

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 action list is presented in a structured format. However, parameter descriptions could be integrated more tightly, and the overall organization could be clearer.

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 (presumably), the description does not mention what the tool returns. For a multi-action tool, understanding return values (e.g., list of layers, success flags) is important. Missing behavioral details and incomplete parameter coverage leave significant gaps for an agent.

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 should explain all parameters. It describes layer_name and blend_value briefly but omits mesh_name entirely. The action parameter's values are listed but not explained beyond the action names. This leaves a critical required parameter undocumented.

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 as layer-based sculpting using shape keys, and lists actions that cover common operations. It distinguishes itself from other sculpt tools like sculpt_brush_stroke by focusing on layer management. However, it assumes familiarity with the concept of sculpt layers, which could be clarified.

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 vs alternative tools (e.g., sculpt_to_shape_key, sculpt_multires_workflow). There is no mention of prerequisites, order of operations, or context where specific actions are appropriate.

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