Loft

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations by stating that the operation is additive and by explaining the effects of closed and ruled: closed connects the last section back to the first toroidally, and ruled uses straight surfaces. It does not describe reversed or the full consequences of sketch ordering beyond profile/section assignment, but it provides meaningful behavior insight.

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 well-structured: a one-sentence purpose statement followed by a tight parameter list. Every line provides useful information, and there is no filler or repetition of schema titles.

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?

The description covers the core operation and the most important parameters, but there is no output schema and the reversed parameter is left unexplained. It also does not mention prerequisites or when loft should be chosen over related sibling tools. This makes it adequate for straightforward calls but not fully complete for an agent selecting among many modeling tools.

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 must carry the parameter documentation burden. It explains sketches (ordered list, first becomes Profile, rest become Sections), closed (toroidal), and ruled (straight surfaces), but it omits reversed entirely and does not add value to name beyond the schema default. This is partial compensation for the schema gap, not complete.

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 opens with a specific verb-plus-resource statement: 'Loft (additively) between two or more sketches.' This clearly identifies both the operation and the input, and 'additively' helps distinguish it from subtractive or other modeling operations. It also conveys that the tool involves multiple sketches, which separates it from single-profile operations like pad 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?

The description implies when to use the tool: when geometry must be created by lofting between multiple sketches. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as sweep, pad, or revolve, nor does it state when those should be preferred. This is useful but only implied usage guidance, not explicit routing.

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