shade_smooth

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the action without explaining side effects, reversibility, or the fact that adding an auto-smooth angle introduces a modifier. It does mention the modifier in the schema parameter, but the description itself offers no such context, leaving the agent unaware of potential state changes.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core action efficiently. It avoids fluff and is appropriately concise for a simple operation, though it could include a bit more usage context without losing efficiency.

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 tool is simple (2 optional params, no output schema), and the schema covers parameter details well. However, the description does not address how it differs from shade_flat or when to prefer it, and it omits the fact that it operates on selection when names are omitted (though that is in the schema). It is adequate for basic invocation but not fully complete for an agent deciding between shading tools.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are well described in the schema (names default to selection, auto_smooth_angle explains degrees and the modifier behavior). The description adds little beyond restating the optional angle, so the baseline of 3 applies since the schema carries the parameter meaning.

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 ('Switch objects to smooth shading') and mentions the optional auto-smooth angle. It is specific about the resource and the effect, but it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tool shade_flat, so it earns a 4 rather than 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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like shade_flat or recalculate_normals. There is no mention of typical use cases or conditions that would favor this tool, leaving the agent to infer context.

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