poly_auto_smooth

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and non-read-only. The description adds the algorithmic behavior (angle threshold) and the shading effect on adjacent faces. It doesn't disclose whether existing smoothing groups are overwritten or any other side effects, but with annotations covering mutability, this is acceptable.

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?

Two short sentences (one Chinese, one English) state the behavior and the 3ds Max equivalent. There is no fluff, and the key information is front-loaded.

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, together with the fully documented schema and annotations, covers the essential information needed to invoke the tool. It states the operation, the angle parameter, and references the known 'Auto Smooth' concept. It could mention the effect on existing smoothing groups, but for a destructive mutation tool with explicit annotations, this is a minor 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 schema describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the semantic of the angle as the threshold between normal directions, which reinforces the schema's 'threshold angle' but adds little beyond it.

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 action: auto-compute smoothing groups by angle threshold. It references 3ds Max Auto Smooth as a well-known equivalent, making the purpose unmistakable. The verb is specific, and the resource (smoothing groups) is explicit, distinguishing it from manual smoothing tools.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as poly_set_smoothing. It only describes what it does; there is no mention of prerequisites, selection behavior, or cases where another tool is preferred.

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