mod_weightednormals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this modifies state destructively. The description adds use-case context but no additional behavioral details beyond saying it computes normals and gives a crisper look, which is consistent. No contradiction, but also no extra transparency about 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 and front-loaded with the primary purpose and use case. The bilingual duplication (Chinese and English) repeats the same content, which adds length but serves different audiences; overall it is efficient without unnecessary detail.

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 modifier tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key information an agent needs: what it does, typical use cases, and how it compares to smoothing. It could explicitly mention that it adds a modifier to the object's stack, but the name and context make this implicit, so it is reasonably 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so all five parameters are already described with names and defaults. The description mentions weight-by-area concept and threshold implicitly, but adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 states the tool computes vertex normals weighted by face area, which is a specific verb+resource. It also distinguishes itself from smoothing modifiers by noting it gives a crisper look, making it clear how it differs from sibling tools like mod_smooth.

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?

It gives concrete usage context: common for hard-surface and low-poly normal bakes, and contrasts with smoothing. However, it does not explicitly say when NOT to use this tool or name a specific alternative tool, so it lacks full exclusion guidance.

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