add_surface_detail

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 non-obvious mechanics: screws/rivets are snapped onto the real surface and parented to the object, panel lines are real grooves affected by the object's bevel modifier, and vents are a live boolean. This is meaningful behavioral context an agent could not get from the schema. It still omits prerequisites, whether the operation is destructive/reversible, and failure behavior.

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?

Two compact sentences: the first frames the purpose, the second front-loads the three implementation behaviors. Every clause carries information, though the opening rationale is slightly motivational rather than operational.

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 14-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the behavior of each detail kind and the schema covers the parameters well. The main gaps are prerequisites and any indication of return/error behavior, but these are minor against the rich schema.

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 86%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter (axis, side, count, depth, width, length, margin, offsets, positions, material). The description only reinforces the kind-to-mechanism mapping (seams/fasteners/vents), adding little beyond the schema's own enum documentation. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 makes clear that this adds manufactured surface detail (seams, fasteners, vents) and names the four mechanisms, which map to the kind enum. It never states the verb explicitly or distinguishes itself from nearby siblings like add_damage, add_planks, or add_modifier, so an agent must infer the 'add detail to an existing surface' framing.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., object must be an existing mesh), and no mention of alternatives. Usage is only implied by the word 'secondary detail' in the opening clause.

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