mod_editnormals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description does not contradict them. It adds some context with 'break/assign' and 'explicit per-vertex normal control,' but it does not explain object-level effects, reversibility, or what exactly gets changed beyond the annotation hints.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the purpose stated in the first clause and no filler. The English translation repeats the Chinese content rather than adding new information, but the overall length is still appropriate and scannable.

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 only two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is serviceable: it names the modifier and its intended use. However, it does not clearly state whether the tool adds/applies the modifier to objects, how it interacts with selection when objects are omitted, or how it differs from other normal-related tools, leaving a moderate gap.

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 already fully describes both parameters (name and objects) in bilingual text, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-level detail or usage nuance beyond what the schema provides, keeping this at the baseline.

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 controls per-vertex normals via an Edit Normals modifier, with specific actions (break/assign) and use cases (normal fixing, custom hard edges). It distinguishes itself semantically from related modifiers like mod_weightednormals, though it does not explicitly name a sibling.

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 gives context by saying it is used for normal fixing and custom hard edges, but it does not name alternatives or state when not to use this tool. Usage guidance is implied rather than explicit, leaving the agent to infer the choice among normal-related modifiers.

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