declare_intent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it states persistence in the .FCStd as a JSON property bag (AD_Intent), that re-declaring replaces the existing contract, and the exact return shape {handle, contract}. It omits validation timing and error behavior for invalid contracts, but the major mutation and storage traits are disclosed.

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 front-loaded with purpose and persistence, then structured into a concise parameter breakdown and a return statement. Every sentence earns its place, and the bullet-style contract documentation is efficient for a zero-coverage schema.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description supplies the missing return shape, storage behavior, replacement semantics, and exhaustive parameter semantics. It is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly without opening other documentation.

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, and it does thoroughly. It defines handle as 'the part' and fully explains the contract object: allowed keys (watertight, airtight_path, required_faces), their types and meanings, nested fields, accepted face-reference formats, and the requirement to declare at least one. This is far beyond what the bare schema provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Record the functional invariants a part must keep satisfying.' It explicitly points to the sibling re-check tool ('see verify_intent') and clarifies the one-contract-per-part scope, so an agent can distinguish this declaration tool from the verification tool.

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 gives clear context: declare invariants so they can be re-checked after every edit, and it names verify_intent as the follow-up tool. It does not provide explicit when-not guidance or distinguish this tool from other contract-related siblings like verify_contract, so it falls short of full alternative routing.

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