shade_flat

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure. It states the action but does not mention side effects (e.g., how it affects object materials/visibility), whether the change is reversible, or what happens if object names are invalid. It also does not contrast with `shade_smooth`, leaving the agent to infer behavioral differences.

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 a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. The primary purpose is front-loaded and immediately understandable.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core action but lacks context on return values, error handling, or what objects are affected beyond the schema. It is minimally adequate but does not go further.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single `names` parameter, which already explains the optional array and the default to selection. The description does not add additional meaning to the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Switch'), a resource ('objects'), and the target state ('flat (faceted) shading'). It clearly distinguishes from the sibling tool `shade_smooth` by the explicit state change.

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 usage is implied: it's used to switch objects to flat shading. However, it does not explicitly mention when to choose this over `shade_smooth` or provide exclusions or prerequisites. The sibling exists but no comparison is made.

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