plasticity_analyze_face_draft

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds substantial context beyond them. It discloses the finite interior-grid sampling method, the signed draft formula asin(normal dot pull), and important proof limitations of the output.

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 compact sentences: purpose first, signed-draft formula second, proof limitations third. Every sentence adds useful information and there is no filler.

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?

For a complex analysis tool with no output schema and no schema descriptions, the description supplies purpose, input concepts, classification categories, and proof caveats. It is slightly incomplete on the revision parameter and exact return structure, but sufficient for correct invocation.

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 does name the pull direction, minimum draft angle, selected faces, and hints at sampling via 'finite interior grid', but it never explains the required revision parameter or the exact samplesPerDirection/default semantics, leaving gaps.

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 and resource: analyze/classify B-Rep face normals and classify faces as positive, negative, neutral, or mixed draft. It distinguishes itself from draft-editing siblings such as plasticity_draft_faces by being a read-only analysis operation.

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?

Explains the required context: an explicit pull direction, minimum draft angle, and sampled face normals. It also gives clear limitations, stating that compact extrema do not prove continuous extrema, mold parting, release paths, or print support requirements. It lacks explicit alternative-tool routing or a named when-to-use/not-use rule.

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