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

Annotations already declare this is a non-idempotent, non-destructive write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it returns a job_id requiring polling, seeds are laid first and remaining ground is filled up to max_pieces, and overlap is measured in mm. It does not say what prior layout state, if any, is replaced.

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?

Roughly four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scoping clarification, then the workflow steps. The hard-wrapped formatting is slightly awkward but no sentence is wasted.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the polling/export guidance is useful. However, for an 11-parameter geometry-creation tool with zero schema documentation, the description omits the meaning of most parameters, leaving the agent guessing on the majority of inputs.

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% across 11 parameters, so the description must carry the burden and mostly fails to. It clarifies overlap (mm), seeds (laid first) and indirectly max_pieces, but leaves angle, pitch, offset, hole_area, lock_angle, fabric_id and the two required IDs entirely unexplained.

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?

States a specific action and object: 'Start covering one surface with multiple pieces of the same ply/fabric,' and explicitly negates the nearest conceptual neighbor ('This is not a laminate stack'). It does not, however, differentiate itself from other sibling operations like run_drape or suggest_seed, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Gives a clear usage context (cover one surface with repeated ply pieces, not a laminate stack) and a follow-up workflow: poll with get_job(kind='layout'), export with layout=true. It stops short of naming when to prefer alternatives such as run_drape or suggest_seed first.

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