limb

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose real behavior: ends are rounded, geometry stays inside the path, and radii can be uniform or per-point. It omits whether the object is created/modified, permission or scene-state requirements, and what the 'apply' flag actually does.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and technique, and reasonably tight. The use-case list adds selection value rather than pure padding, though it is the softest sentence.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage over 6 parameters. For a mesh-creation tool the description explains the geometry concept well but leaves too many parameter semantics and mutation behaviors undocumented for an agent to call it confidently.

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% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies points (polyline of world points) and radii (one per point or one for all); name, apply, sides, and subdivisions are left completely unexplained in both the schema and the description.

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: 'Make a smooth tube along a polyline of world points', plus the technique (Skin plus Subdivision) and example uses. It is clearly distinguishable from generic siblings, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with close relatives like sweep, loft, or extrude_profile.

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 list ('arms, legs, tails, tentacles, branches') implies the intended context, so an agent can infer when to reach for it. However, there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative against sweep or loft, which is the real selection risk here.

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