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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses key behavioral details: ranking order by coverage, percentage above lock, and maximum shear; that this is a stated comparison rule rather than a global optimum; that runs use requested or preset pitch without hidden coarse approximation; and that backend result IDs are temporary and should be exported promptly.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then adds only operationally relevant details: seed handling, ranking rules, pitch behavior, and export urgency. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover basic safety flags. However, for a complex 9-parameter tool with zero schema description coverage, the description leaves too many parameter meanings and usage boundaries unstated to be fully complete.

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 carry parameter meaning. It partially explains seed, angles, and pitch, but leaves offset, hole_area, lock_angle, fabric_id, workspace_id, and mesh_id without added semantic detail, which is insufficient for a 9-parameter tool.

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: 'Compare up to 12 warp angles, sequentially, at one fixed seed and cloth configuration.' This clearly distinguishes it from a single-run sibling like run_drape by emphasizing batched sequential comparison under fixed conditions.

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 implies usage by stating the comparison scope and seed-omission behavior, but it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over alternatives such as run_drape or suggest_seed. The context is clear enough to infer intent, but no exclusions or sibling routing are provided.

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