set_smooth_shading

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It clearly explains the toggle action, the effect of 'smooth', and the 'auto_smooth' and 'angle' parameters. It does not mention side effects (e.g., recalculating normals) but the core behavior is well-covered.

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 highly concise: one sentence for purpose then a clean parameter list. No redundant information or filler. It front-loads the action, making it easy to scan.

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 4 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers all parameters and the core operation. It could mention that the tool only works on mesh objects (already implied by 'mesh object') and what the result looks like, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description is the sole source of parameter meaning. It provides clear explanations: 'name: Mesh object name', 'smooth: True for smooth, False for flat', 'auto_smooth: Enable auto-smooth', and 'angle: threshold in degrees, default 30'. This adds essential value beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

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 begins with a clear, specific verb ('Toggle...smooth or flat shading') and identifies the target resource ('mesh object'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like 'flip_normals' or 'set_face_material_index', which address different aspects of mesh appearance.

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 states what the tool does but does not explicitly guide when to use it versus alternatives. It lacks context such as 'Use when you need to control shading appearance for rendering' or exclusions like 'Does not affect flat-shaded materials'. Usage is implied but not clarified.

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