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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool reports connectedness, which is genuinely useful behavioral context about the result, but it never states whether the created mesh persists, what happens on invalid or non-adjacent face sets, or any side effects on the workspace.

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?

A single tight sentence with the action front-loaded and the input constraint appended. No filler, though the semicolon clause could be dropped without loss if it were moved elsewhere.

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 described, but for a non-idempotent creation tool with three fully undocumented required parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves too much unexplained — no workspace_id semantics, no failure modes, no relation to run_drape.

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% for three required parameters. The description clarifies that face_ids are STEP face IDs and must be explicitly chosen, but says nothing about workspace_id, step_id, whether all three belong to the same workspace, or ID validation.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Create a drapable mesh') and scopes the input to 'explicitly chosen STEP face IDs', which distinguishes it from list_faces and run_drape. It stops short of explicitly naming sibling alternatives, but the action is unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the workflow siblings (list_faces to obtain face IDs, run_drape to consume the mesh). The word 'explicitly chosen' faintly implies the caller must already hold valid IDs, but nothing directs the agent to alternatives.

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