sheet_refold

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discharges it well: it discloses that this does NOT replay the feature model, that it measures leg lengths off the flat outline, that it reports disagreement rather than hiding it, and it warns about the meaningful vs meaningless round trip (volume must not match). This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure for a mutation/verification tool.

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?

Front-loads the purpose in one sentence and uses short paragraphs, each earning its place. It is somewhat long with a dense physics digression, but the structure keeps it navigable and nothing is irrelevant.

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?

Despite no annotations and no output schema, the description spells out the return shape ({handle, name, volume_mm3, bbox, bends, compare?} with the compare sub-fields) and the tolerance defaults. For an 8-parameter tool this is complete enough to call correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it adds real meaning for handle, flat, compare, volume_tol_pct, and bbox_tol_mm. However, name, k_factor, and bend_table are never described as parameters (K appears only in the physics aside), leaving three of eight undocumented.

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 and resource ('Fold a flat pattern back up') and immediately positions it against its sibling as 'the other half of the unfold gate.' An agent can distinguish this from sheet_unfold and sheet_check without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the caller between the two entry modes: pass `handle` for a sheet part, or `flat` for a sheet_unfold report 'produced elsewhere (or a deliberately corrupted one, to prove the check bites).' It also states that `compare` defaults to `handle` and is skipped when only `flat` is given, giving clear when-to-use and how-to-select guidance.

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