poly_set_smoothing

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's main contribution is explaining the hard/soft edge effect. It does not disclose that assigning a group overwrites any previous smoothing assignment or that the object may need to be an Editable Poly, but it 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 concise and front-loaded with the core operation, followed by a useful explanatory sentence. The English text duplicates the Chinese text, but bilingual duplication is acceptable and does not make the entry unnecessarily long.

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 simple mutation tool with complete parameter documentation and annotations declaring destructiveness, the description is largely sufficient: it states the scope, the group range, and the visual effect. A note about overwriting existing smoothing groups would improve it slightly, but nothing critical is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 parameters are already well documented. The description adds little beyond reinforcing the concept of smoothing groups and does not clarify edges cases such as what happens when faces is omitted, though the schema already covers that.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Put the selected faces into a smoothing group (1-32)', and explains the outcome in terms of hard vs soft edges. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like poly_auto_smooth, so it does not fully earn a 5.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as poly_auto_smooth for automatic smoothing. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context cues beyond the basic operation itself, and the visual-effect note is more conceptual than actionable.

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