set_edge_crease

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

With no annotations, the description takes on the full burden. It explains the crease weight range and its effect on subdivision sharpness, which is moderately transparent. However, it does not mention whether it modifies existing creases, requires a Subdivision Surface modifier, or has any side effects.

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 concise, with a clear two-part structure: an introductory sentence and a parameter list. Every sentence adds value with no 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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the parameters and the effect but lacks mention of prerequisites (e.g., Subdivision Surface modifier), return behavior, or edge case handling.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It clarifies each parameter: 'name' as mesh object name, 'edge_indices' as comma-separated indices or 'all', and 'crease' with range 0.0–1.0. This significantly improves understanding beyond the bare types.

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 clearly states the tool sets subdivision crease weight on edges, and explains what crease does in terms of sharpness. This is specific enough to distinguish from general edge operations, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling like set_edge_bevel_weight.

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 explains the effect of crease values but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like mark_sharp_edges or set_edge_bevel_weight. There is no mention of prerequisites or conditions for use.

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