sculpt_symmetry

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

The description outlines each action's purpose but does not disclose important behavioral traits such as whether actions are destructive, prerequisites (e.g., sculpt mode required), or side effects (e.g., enable_mirror toggles mirror mode). With no annotations, this information is missing.

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 extremely concise, using a bullet-like structure to list actions and parameters without extraneous text. Every sentence adds value, and the format aids quick scanning.

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 no annotations, the description explains most parameters and actions but omits the required 'mesh_name' parameter description and contextual cues like mode requirements. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but completeness is still 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?

The description provides clear explanations for 'action', 'axis', 'direction', and 'merge_threshold', adding value beyond the bare schema. However, 'mesh_name' is required but not described, leaving a gap.

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 'Symmetry operations for sculpting' and enumerates four distinct actions, making the purpose specific and well-defined. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'measure_symmetry', which could also perform symmetry analysis.

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 action names imply when to use each (e.g., 'symmetrize' for mirroring, 'check' for analysis), but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like 'measure_symmetry' or conditions for use.

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