sculpt.voxel_remesh

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

Annotations provide no read-only or destructive hints, so the description carries the burden of explaining side effects, but it never states whether the tool modifies the mesh in place, replaces topology, or affects the object's history stack. 'Risk: standard' is a generic classification, not a behavioral disclosure.

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 short, but brevity here is under-specification, not conciseness. The one substantive sentence merely restates the tool name; the risk/maturity line adds no operational 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?

For a 7-parameter tool with low schema coverage and a nontrivial sculpting operation, this description is almost entirely empty. Even though an output schema exists, the missing core semantics — what the tool does, what voxelSize means, and what object it affects — make correct selection and invocation unsupported.

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 43%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters, but it does not mention voxelSize, objectId, name, or the expected scene revision. An agent receives no explanation of what voxelSize controls or how to target the correct object.

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 command name — 'PartMe Blender Harness command `sculpt.voxel_remesh`' — and adds risk/maturity metadata. It does not say what voxel remeshing does, what resource it acts on, or how it differs from sibling sculpt tools like blender_sculpt_cleanup or blender_sculpt_multires.

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 only guidance is that 'Per-request argument checks and session policy still apply,' which is generic boilerplate and does not help an agent decide when to use this tool. There is no mention of prerequisites such as an active object, mesh selection, or why voxel remesh should be chosen over other sculpt/retopology tools.

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