apply_design_reinforcements

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses multiple behavioral details: auto-applies fixes, specific transformation types (thickened walls, fillets, base plate, gussets), returns before/after scores and skipped list, requires OpenSCAD, and opens an interactive 3D stage with automatic decimation. It doesn't explicitly state whether the original file is modified vs. creating a new one, but the output_path parameter implies output to a new file.

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 description is lengthy but well-organized, starting with a one-sentence summary followed by bullet lists of fixes and parameters, then an additional note about the 3D stage. Every sentence contributes useful information, especially given the need to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions. Slightly verbose but justified.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (mesh analysis + automatic fixes), no annotations, no output schema, and minimal schema descriptions, the description covers the essential aspects: inputs, outputs, dependencies, skipped items, and interactive stage behavior. It lacks error handling details and exact return structure, but overall provides enough context for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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. It does so thoroughly, documenting all five parameters with their meanings and defaults: file_path, output_path, fillet_radius_mm, wall_thicken_mm, and base_height_mm. This adds significant semantic value beyond the bare types and defaults in the schema.

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 clearly states a specific verb-resource combination: 'Analyze a mesh for structural risks, then auto-apply fixes.' It further distinguishes itself as 'the one-step design hardening tool' that runs the full analysis pipeline and applies every applicable fix, setting it apart from siblings that likely only analyze or recommend.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you want both analysis and automatic fixes in one step. It also notes what it does NOT do ('Reinforcements that can't be auto-applied (like reorient) are listed in skipped with guidance'), giving context for limitations. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like analyze_structural_risks or recommend_design_reinforcements, so an agent might not know when to choose those instead.

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