annotate_face

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the role binds to the stable f_* tag, persists in the .FCStd as a JSON property bag (same mechanism as publish_interface), survives save/reopen, and that re-using a name updates that annotation. Missing only failure/edge behavior (e.g. invalid tag handling).

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then parameter semantics, then return shape. Every sentence carries information, though the prose is slightly long and the return-value sentence could be trimmed given it is partly derivable.

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 output schema exists but the description documents the return dict in detail (handle, name, role, tag, index, roles). Combined with persistence and update semantics, an agent has everything needed to call this mutation-style tool correctly.

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 0% (no parameter descriptions in the schema), so the description must compensate entirely — and it does, documenting all five params: handle, face (f_* tag, 'FaceN', or int index), role (full enum list), name (default and update semantics), and meta (stored verbatim with an example).

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: 'Declare the semantic ROLE of a face — what it is FOR'. This clearly distinguishes it from nearby siblings like classify_face_sides (classifying geometry) and list_face_roles (reading roles) by naming the intent-binding purpose.

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?

Explains why to use it (so later edits can be checked against intent) and names a concrete downstream consumer: 'check_airtight_path accepts the role/name directly (e.g. inlet="inlet")'. It does not explicitly contrast with alternative declaration tools such as declare_intent, but the usage context is clear.

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