loft

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses that sections are ordered along the axis, that roundness 2 = ellipse and 4 = rounded box, and implies closure — but it never explains the effect of segments, subdivisions, caps:false, or axis defaults, which are behaviorally significant for a generator.

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?

Roughly four front-loaded sentences with no filler: the definition leads, the section grammar follows, then use cases and the alternative. Slightly dense inline JSON, but every sentence earns its place.

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 6-parameter generator with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core section format well but omits the tiling/closure controls (caps, segments, subdivisions) an agent needs to call it correctly. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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 does an excellent job on 'sections' (at/size/roundness semantics), but leaves name, axis, caps, segments, and subdivisions completely undefined, so half the interface is undocumented.

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 closed body from cross-sections you give as numbers along an axis.' It defines the section object and names the sibling loft_from_masks as the distinct path, so an agent can separate it from lathe/sweep/revolve-style siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Explicit routing: 'Good for torsos, heads, bottles, columns' gives the target use case, and 'With a front and a side image of the form use loft_from_masks' names the alternative and the condition that selects it. Nothing is left to inference.

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