poly_unify_normals

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, signaling a mutating operation. The description adds the behavioral detail that it flips normals to a consistent direction, which is useful but not extensive. It does not mention reversibility, whether it affects all faces when omitted, or any side effects. Given the annotation coverage, the description provides moderate added value but lacks deeper behavioral disclosure.

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, consisting of two short sentences (one in Chinese, one in English) that front-load the core action and purpose. There is no fluff or redundant content. Every clause contributes meaning, and the structure is efficient for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains what the tool does, the problem it solves, and the effect on normals. The schema covers parameter defaults, and annotations cover the destructive nature. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit note about operating on editable poly objects, but given the sibling context and simplicity, this is not critical.

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%: both 'faces' and 'objects' parameters have detailed descriptions in both Chinese and English. The tool description does not elaborate on parameters beyond the schema, which already explains that omitting faces applies to all and omitting objects uses the current selection. Thus the description adds no extra meaning, and the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 action ('unify the normals of the selected faces') and its intended effect ('fixing broken shading from inconsistent normals'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like poly_flip_faces (which flips individual normals) and poly_set_smoothing (smoothing groups) by emphasizing a unified direction across selected faces. The verb 'unify' and the resource 'normals' are explicit, making the tool's role unambiguous.

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 a use case (fixing broken shading from inconsistent normals) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as poly_flip_faces or mod_weightednormals. The context implies it is for unifying direction on a set of faces, but no exclusions or comparisons are given. This leaves some ambiguity for an agent deciding between similar poly-editing tools.

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