mod_turbosmooth

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

The description calls the operation 'non-destructive' while the annotations declare destructiveHint=true, which is a direct contradiction in the safety profile. Although the warning about high iterations is useful, the contradictory destructiveness signal undermines an agent's risk assessment.

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, front-loads the core definition, and keeps the bilingual versions parallel. Some wording repeats schema parameter descriptions, but the additional performance warning is worthwhile and the overall structure is efficient.

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 schema fully documents parameters and the description adds non-destructive context plus a practical risk note, which covers most of what an agent needs to invoke the tool. It is not fully complete because it does not explain modifier-stack interaction, return/confirmation behavior, or when to choose this over similar sibling tools.

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 documents all six parameters with bilingual descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the practical guidance about viewport/render iteration settings and the risk of excessive iterations, which is useful but does not materially extend schema coverage.

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 tool as TurboSmooth, a non-destructive subdivision modifier, and immediately explains the two iteration parameters. It lacks an explicit verb like 'add' or 'apply', and it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling modifiers such as mod_smooth or mod_subdivide.

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 provides concrete operational guidance for game assets and warns that high iteration counts can explode polygon counts. However, it never states when to use TurboSmooth versus alternative subdivision/smoothing modifiers, so the selection context is only implied.

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