draft

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a mutation of faces but doesn't state whether this is destructive, requires a specific document state, needs to be committed in a transaction, or has any side effects. For a part-design mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 a compact list of parameter definitions, front-loaded with the tool's purpose. Each line earns its place. It could be slightly more structured, but it's efficient and clear.

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 part-design mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides parameter semantics but omits critical behavioral context: transaction requirements, error conditions, what happens to existing geometry, and expected document state. It is incomplete for an agent to invoke safely.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by defining each parameter's meaning: base as feature handle, faces as a list of handle/face objects, angle_deg as positive degrees, neutral_plane as the measurement plane, and reversed as direction flip. It adds substantial value beyond the bare schema property names.

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: applying a draft angle to faces, with a parenthetical purpose (moldability). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like chamfer_edges or fillet_edges, which also modify faces but for different purposes.

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 mentions 'for moldability' but doesn't explain when to use draft vs other face-modification tools, nor does it mention prerequisites like needing a neutral plane. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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