sculpt_reference

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It describes actions but does not disclose side effects, destructiveness, required permissions, or scene modifications. For a tool that adds image planes, this omission significantly hinders safe invocation.

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 action items and parameter explanations, front-loading the purpose. It is concise but could be slightly more compact by grouping related info. Overall efficient.

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 tool has 5 parameters and an output schema, the description covers actions and parameter basics. However, it lacks prerequisites (e.g., need an active mesh? sculpt mode?) and does not clarify which parameters apply to which actions. The output schema exists but is not referenced, so completeness is moderate.

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 compensates by explaining each parameter (action, view, image_path, size, opacity) with acceptable detail, including value constraints for view and opacity. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema 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 explicitly states 'Manage reference images for sculpting' and enumerates four specific actions (create_turnaround, add_image_plane, setup_camera_ref, list). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools, as no other tool focuses on reference images.

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 lists actions but provides no explicit guidance on when to use each or alternatives. The context of sculpting implies use for reference setup, but without clear decision criteria or exclusions, it's merely adequate.

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