loft

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully states that the operation is additive and explains how closed and ruled alter the resulting geometry, but it does not cover permissions, error conditions, interaction with existing geometry, or undo behavior.

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 tightly structured and front-loaded, with one sentence for the core purpose and bullet-style definitions for key parameters. Every sentence adds useful information without waste.

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 5-parameter CAD tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives enough to understand the core operation but lacks prerequisites, handling of reversed/name, and behavioral edge cases. It is minimally viable but not fully complete.

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 documents the sketches ordering and the closed and ruled flags, but omits the name and reversed parameters, leaving important semantic gaps.

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 modeling verb and resource: loft between two or more sketches, with the additively qualifier. It clearly identifies the operation among CAD siblings, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from alternatives like sweep or revolve.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose loft over sibling operations such as sweep, revolve, or pad. The description only defines the operation itself, leaving the agent to infer usage context without explicit conditions or exclusions.

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