sculpt_remesh

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

Discloses that DYNTOPO is 'sculpt-mode only,' which is a behavioral constraint. However, does not mention if operation is destructive, whether original mesh is modified, or if there are prerequisites like being in a specific mode.

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?

Extremely concise: one opening sentence and a bullet-like parameter list. No filler words. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Provides sufficient detail for a single-purpose tool with four parameters: covers all parameters and method semantics. Lacks some contextual info like return behavior or computational cost, but is largely complete for the agent to invoke correctly.

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 meaning by explaining each parameter: mesh_name as 'Name of the mesh object,' method choices with context, and size parameters with effect notes (e.g., 'smaller = more detail'). This goes beyond the schema's bare 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?

States 'Remesh a sculpt for uniform topology,' clearly indicating the verb and resource. However, there is a sibling tool named 'remesh' without explicit differentiation, so purpose is clear but doesn't distinguish from sibling.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'remesh', 'decimate', or 'retopology'. Only describes the two methods (VOXEL/DYNTOPO) but doesn't provide context for selection.

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