loft

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

Annotations cover safety (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false), and the description adds substantive behavioral detail beyond them: the cut=True flag reverses material addition into removal, profiles must be closed, and guide curves must touch every profile. It leaves failure behavior and feature-creation effects unstated, so it stops short of full disclosure.

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 dense sentences with the core operation first, then the optional parameter, then the boolean modifier and prerequisites. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess; nothing is restated from the schema or annotations.

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 no explanation, and all three parameters plus the sketch-closing prerequisite are covered. What remains thin is error/validity behavior (what happens if profiles are not coplanar-compatible or guides miss a profile) and the format of the sketch arguments.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the load and does it well: cut is explained by effect, guide_sketches by its geometric constraint ("touching every profile"), and profile_sketches by cardinality and ordering ("two or more ... in order"). It does not say what format the sketch identifiers take, which keeps it off a 5.

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?

"Loft through two or more closed profiles drawn on different planes" gives a specific verb (loft) and the exact geometric resource, and the parenthetical reference to create_plane clarifies the plane requirement. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closest sibling sweep, which an agent would plausibly weigh against it.

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 supplies real prerequisites ("Close the sketches first (end_sketch)", "see create_plane") that imply when the tool can be called. But it never says when to prefer loft over sweep/extrude/revolve, nor when a loft is inappropriate, so usage is inferred rather than stated.

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