Draft

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. The description adds useful context about what the neutral_plane is and that reversed flips direction. However, it doesn't disclose what happens to existing geometry, whether the operation is parametric, or any failure modes. With annotations covering the basic safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 compact and front-loaded with the purpose, then lists parameters in a scannable format. Each line earns its place, though the parameter list format is slightly terse and could benefit from a brief example or clarification of the face reference syntax.

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 feature-creation tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key parameters and their semantics. However, it lacks information about return values, error conditions, or how the draft feature integrates with the feature tree. The sibling list shows many similar feature tools, so more context about when this is appropriate would help.

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 carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It explains base, faces, angle_deg, neutral_plane, and reversed with meaningful detail, including the format for face references (tag|'FaceN') and the semantic role of neutral_plane. This goes well beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't explain the 'name' parameter.

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 the tool applies a draft angle to faces for moldability, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like moldability_check and sheet operations, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative. The purpose is clear enough for an agent to understand what the tool does.

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 usage context (for moldability) and explains the role of neutral_plane as typically the parting plane, which gives some guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like moldability_check or dfm_check, nor does it mention prerequisites like having a body/feature selected.

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