Are “tools” ultimately superfluous?
Consider taking “tools” out so that it is shorter and looks like this:
Curve, Surface, Solid, SubD, etc
PS is like calling the button: Curve Button, Surface Button, etc …
Also, taking it out will give you more margin between tabs.
example using tree spaces
Between the [Mesh Tools] tab and the [Render Tools] tab, consider adding [UVs] , [Mapping] or [UV Mapping].
I recall an earlier internal discussion about it.
Things to consider: there are a couple different Surface * toolbars, and the same holds true for other categories.
renaming that tab also renames it in this list. Maybe that is fine? idk, but I’d say that Surface Creation should be the one that has plain “Surface” as name, at least to me that seems most logical.
We could of course duplicate the Surface Tools toolbar into Surface, but that doesn’t feel quite right.
Other than that, I agree with you that shortening those names makes a lot of sense.
Generic categories → shorter names. Specialized workflows → more descriptive longer names. (-UncleBob CleanCode). In this context, brevity enhances clarity and creates valuable breathing room between tabs.
The design and color of the icon help to identify the product in question and allow the use of abbreviations. A distinctive icon paired with a concise label provides immediate recognition, reducing reliance on longer text while maintaining strong visual hierarchy.
If missing, “Mapping” or better “UVs” (concise similar to Curve, Surface, Solid, SubD, and Mesh) deserves promotion to a visible top-level tab before Render.
