sculpt.multires

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

Annotations are all false and the description adds only 'Risk: standard; maturity: L3', which is not an account of the tool's behavior. It does not disclose side effects, prerequisites, whether a modifier is created or mutated, scene impact, or any operational constraints. The description leaves the agent with no understanding of what executing this command actually does.

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 text is brief and free of filler, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It opens with a restatement of the command name and then gives metadata, failing to front-load a functional summary or organizing information in a way that helps an agent decide to call it.

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 tool with 8 parameters, no enums, a low schema description coverage, and many closely related sibling tools, this description is far from complete. Even though an output schema exists, the agent still lacks the core knowledge of what the command does, what inputs mean, and what context is required, making correct invocation essentially impossible.

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 38%, so the description needed to compensate for the undocumented parameters, but it does not mention any parameter. Fields like `name`, `levels`, `objectId`, and `modifierName` have no semantic explanation beyond their raw schema constraints, so an agent cannot determine how to set them correctly.

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 identifies `sculpt.multires` as a PartMe Blender Harness command but essentially restates the title without naming a specific action, resource effect, or goal. It does not say whether the tool adds, configures, applies, or inspects a multiresolution modifier, nor does it distinguish itself from nearby sculpt/modifier sibling tools.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only requirement mentioned, 'Per-request argument checks and session policy still apply', is a generic harness caveat, not a selection condition. With many sibling sculpt and modifier tools, no routing or exclusion is provided.

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