add_weighted_normal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add some behavioral context: the modifier must be placed last in the stack and affects export output ('survives export'). However, it does not disclose whether the operation is non-destructive, what object is affected, or any side effects on the existing modifier stack — gaps for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and the ordering guidance follows immediately. Every sentence earns its place and the guidance is actionable.

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 5-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is incomplete. It explains the 'why' (hard-surface shading that survives export) but omits the 'how' — parameter meaning, required object context, and behavior of the modifier in the stack. An agent would struggle to invoke it with correct parameter values.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It provides no explanation of mode, weight, keep_sharp, name, or modifier_name semantics. The five parameters are entirely unsupported by the description, leaving an agent to guess the meaning and appropriate values for each.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Add a Weighted Normal modifier.' The modifier type is named precisely, which distinguishes it from the generic add_modifier sibling and the other specialized modifier tools (add_bevel, add_decimate, etc.). The purpose is immediately clear to an agent deciding which modifier tool to use.

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 explicit placement guidance: 'Put this last in the stack, after a bevel with harden_normals, to get clean hard-surface shading that survives export.' This is clear contextual instruction about when/how to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or explain when one would NOT use this tool versus other modifier tools.

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