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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, and openWorld=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those hints: omitted seed is suggested, omitted pitch/lock_angle use the fabric preset including UD spread/compression, the API may increase pitch, and pitch_used reports the actual resolution. It still does not explain persistence/export mechanics or auth requirements.

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 purpose and return values, then efficiently adds parameter caveats and one important domain warning. Every sentence carries useful meaning, though the dense run of parameter details could be easier to scan.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety/idempotency profile. With 0% schema coverage across 9 parameters, however, the description leaves required IDs and fabric_id semantically unexplained and only names the result_id export mechanic.

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 provides units for pitch/offset (mm), hole_area (mm², null bridges holes), angle in degrees, and lock_angle preset behavior, but it never explains the required workspace_id or mesh_id parameters, fabric_id is only shown by its default, and seed semantics remain vague.

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 verb ('Drape') and resource ('one fabric at one warp angle') plus what is returned: statistics and an exportable result_id. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings such as compare_drapes or suggest_seed, leaving some sibling routing implicit.

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 does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it name any when-not conditions. Parameter default behavior is explained, but that is not usage guidance; an agent must infer that this is for a single drape run.

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