make_part

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose some behavior: it returns a topology verdict, unknown `params` keys are reported explicitly rather than silently ignored, and the result is session-stored. It omits anything about failure modes, auth, or whether the build consumes resources, so it is only partially transparent for a mutation-style tool.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action followed by return value and session semantics. No filler, though the parenthetical example list is slightly dense.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must do more work. It covers the return type at a high level (topology verdict) and the session model, but leaves `params` structure and error behavior unspecified for a 3-parameter build tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning for each of the three params — `part` values come from list_parts, `name` is the session handle used by other tools, and `params` rejects unknown keys — but it never describes the shape or expected keys of `params`, leaving the main data-carrying parameter under-specified.

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+resource ('Build a part from the built-in parametric library') and enumerates concrete examples (gear / vase / torus knot / lattice coupon). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling make_lattice, which is the closest overlap, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Routes the agent to list_parts for valid `part` values and notes the model can be referenced by other tools, which implies downstream usage. However there is no explicit when-to-use vs make_lattice, and no statement of prerequisites or when-not to call it.

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