loft

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden; it does contribute real preconditions (profiles must be closed, at least two, order matters) and the ruled/smooth distinction that the schema does not express. It says nothing about the mutation side though — whether a new body is created, whether input sketches are consumed, what happens on result_name collision, or what errors to expect from open profiles.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the core operation front-loaded and the optional modifier explained second. Nothing is repeated from the schema and every clause adds information.

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 not be explained, and the description covers the essential geometry semantics for a 5-parameter tool. What is missing is small but real: the role of `material`, the meaning of `result_name` in the document, and any failure behavior for invalid profile input.

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 compensate for all five parameters. It meaningfully explains `sketches` (closed profiles, ordered) and `ruled` (straight vs smooth transitions), but leaves `doc`, `material`, and `result_name` entirely to the bare titles — a substantive gap given no schema help. Partial compensation warrants a mid score.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource combination ('Loft a solid through two or more closed sketch profiles') and adds a scoping constraint (ordered profiles, minimum of two), which is enough to separate it from sweep, pad, revolve and the other geometry siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to use instead for adjacent operations.

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 example ('sketches on parallel planes with different `offset`') hints at the intended modeling situation, so usage is implied rather than merely absent. There is no explicit when-not-to-use condition and no pointer to sweep/revolve for alternative transition behaviors, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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