set_smooth_shading

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, so the description's value lies in explaining the parameter semantics (smooth/auto_smooth/angle). It adds context about the angle unit (radians) and the relationship between modes, going beyond the schema. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Each sentence adds essential info: the action, the mode flags, and the auto_smooth behavior. No filler or redundancy.

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's simplicity and the presence of an output schema (not shown but noted in context), the description fully covers the input semantics. It does not explain edge cases like simultaneous smooth+auto_smooth, but for a simple setter this is adequate. The required parameter is implied by the tool context.

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 0%, so the description compensates by explaining 'smooth' (true/false meaning), 'auto_smooth' (angle threshold), and 'angle' (radians). The 'object' parameter is self-evident from context, so no explicit explanation is needed. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('shading mode'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_viewport_shading. It immediately clarifies the three modes (smooth, flat, auto_smooth) with parameter mappings.

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 description implies usage context (when you want to change object shading) but does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. For example, it does not mention set_viewport_shading for viewport-level shading, leaving room for ambiguity.

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