sculpt.set_mask

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

Annotations already state the tool is non-read-only, non-idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds only 'Risk: standard; maturity: L3' and a requirement note. This is metadata, not behavioral disclosure. The description never reveals what state change occurs (e.g., whether the mask replaces existing values, whether it is a screen projection or 3D mask, or how 'value' in radians maps to mask coverage).

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 scannable at three compact sentences, so it earns some credit for brevity. However, most of it is boilerplate tautology and generic risk/maturity labels; the sentences are concise but do not carry functional value. It is under-specified rather than genuinely well-structured.

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 complexity - six parameters, a nested selection receipt, a milestone transaction requirement, and an output schema - the description leaves the critical context unsaid: that selection comes from mesh.select, that topologyVersion must match the current state, and that this maps/sculpt mask on a specific object. An agent only sees schema fragments and must infer the entire workflow. The output schema existing reduces some burden, but the operational context is still missing.

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 83%, so the schema already documents the parameters well, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning: it does nothing to explain the 'value' triple, the selection receipt's topologyVersion, or the roles of _transactionId. It neither improves nor impedes what the schema already provides.

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 only restates the tool's identity as 'PartMe Blender Harness command sculpt.set_mask' - essentially repeating the name and title - then adds risk/maturity metadata. It never states what the tool actually does (e.g., 'sets a sculpt mask on the selected mesh to restrict brush edits'). With siblings like blender_sculpt_brush_stroke and blender_sculpt_displace present, an agent cannot tell what this tool accomplishes from the description alone.

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 zero guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. Nothing points toward when set_mask is appropriate (e.g., protecting regions before brush strokes), when it is not, or how it relates to sculpt_brush_stroke, sculpt_voxel_remesh, or the mesh.select workflow. The only hints are the generic line that 'per-request argument checks and session policy still apply,' which says nothing about usage conditions.

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