design_add_head_construction

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 an additive overlay but never states whether it creates a new layer, whether it is reversible or how it is cleared, or whether it modifies the active sketch. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage 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?

One compact sentence with no filler, and the core action and method are front-loaded. It is appropriately sized, though it could have used its remaining space to add usage or behavioral context rather than stopping at the parenthetical.

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?

With seven parameters, a nested position object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should clarify what the overlay produces and how it relates to existing construction guides. None of that is covered, leaving the agent to guess about layer creation, persistence, and cleanup.

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 100%, so all seven parameters (including defaults and the method enum) are already documented in the schema. The description only hints at tilt/rotation controls and the Loomis default, adding marginal value beyond structured data, which matches the baseline 3.

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 ('Add') and resource ('head construction overlay'), plus the underlying method (Loomis ball+plane) and the tilt/rotation control surface. It is distinguishable from most siblings, but does not explicitly separate itself from near-neighbors like design_add_construction_form or design_add_figure_mannequin.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as design_add_construction_form or design_add_figure_mannequin, and no mention of prerequisites or how to remove the overlay afterward (design_clear_construction_guides). Usage must be inferred from the name alone.

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