create_face

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the unit convention (metres converted internally to inches), which is real behavioral context, but says nothing about failure modes (e.g. non-coplanar or self-intersecting points), permissions, or whether an existing face is replaced.

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?

The unit statement is front-loaded and useful, but the description repeats 'metres' three times across two sentences, with the third clause being a redundant restatement of the first. It wastes space that could carry usage or failure-mode guidance.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical unit convention but omits failure behavior and return information an agent would need. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuinely non-schema information: the unit system (metres) for the points. This is essential to invoking the tool correctly and is not stated in the schema itself.

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 ('Create a flat face (polygon) in SketchUp') and the required input (ordered 3D points). It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling create_polygon or explain how a 'face' differs from a polygon/edge, leaving some ambiguity.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like create_polygon, create_edge, or merge_coplanar. It is purely a statement of what the tool does, with no context or exclusions.

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