sculpt.cleanup

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond 'Risk: standard; maturity: L3'. It does not disclose what the cleanup operation modifies, whether it is destructive to sculpt data, whether it requires an active object, or what side effects occur. The description neither contradicts the annotations nor enriches them, so it fails to carry the behavioral disclosure burden.

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 short and front-loaded with the command name, but it is under-specified rather than concise. The sentence 'Risk: standard; maturity: L3' and 'Per-request argument checks and session policy still apply' are generic and do not earn their place for tool selection. It is not bloated, but it sacrifices substance for brevity.

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?

For a 9-parameter mutation tool with no idempotency and no destructive hint, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the operation's effect, prerequisites, or relationship to the transaction workflow implied by _transactionId and _expectedSceneRevision. The output schema exists, but the input side and behavioral side are too under-specified for an agent to call this tool 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?

Schema description coverage is only 44%, and the description provides zero parameter explanations. The schema has 9 parameters including name, ratio, target, objectId, modifierName, and several underscore-prefixed harness fields, but the description does not clarify which are required for a sculpt cleanup, what 'ratio' means, what 'target' refers to, or how modifierName relates to the operation. With low schema coverage, the description was expected to compensate and does not.

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 is essentially a label: 'PartMe Blender Harness command `sculpt.cleanup`.' It does not state what the tool does, what resource it acts on, or what 'cleanup' means in Blender sculpting. The title 'sculpt.cleanup' is repeated, making it close to a tautology. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like blender_sculpt_voxel_remesh or blender_animation_fcurve_clean.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only usage-related text is 'Per-request argument checks and session policy still apply', which is generic harness boilerplate, not tool-specific usage guidance. An agent cannot determine when to invoke sculpt.cleanup instead of blender_sculpt_voxel_remesh, blender_modifier_remove, or other cleanup-adjacent tools.

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