mod_relax

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds useful algorithmic detail (iterative neighbor averaging, smoothing, wrinkle removal). However, it does not disclose what is affected, whether the operation is reversible, or how it interacts with the modifier stack. The description does not contradict the 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?

The description is short and front-loaded with the core purpose, with the Chinese and English versions mirroring each other cleanly. The bilingual duplication adds some length but is appropriate for the tool's audience and does not introduce irrelevant content.

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?

The description does not explicitly state that the tool adds a Relax modifier to objects, nor does it explain how this differs from poly_relax or related modifier tools. With no output schema and only annotations providing a destructive hint, an agent lacks key operational context needed to invoke the tool confidently.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all five parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what is already in the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource (Relax modifier) and its effect: it iteratively pulls vertices toward their neighbors' average, smoothing the mesh and removing wrinkles. However, it does not explicitly say it adds/applies the modifier to an object, and it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool poly_relax, which performs a similar vertex-relaxation operation.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like poly_relax, mod_smooth, or other smoothing modifiers. The smoothing/wrinkle-removal purpose is implied, but no conditions, exclusions, or alternatives are stated.

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