Draft faces

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

Annotations provide no behavioral hints, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the core geometric behavior and taper direction. However, it does not mention that this is a model-mutating feature addition, potential failure behavior, or validation implications beyond what the schema's 'validate' parameter implies.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence states the operation and its typical use case with zero filler. The explanation is compact and easy to parse before considering parameters.

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 no output schema and only a title annotation, the description carries significant context burden. It explains the geometric purpose but omits side effects, failure modes, and explicit selection guidance for the required FeatureScript queries, leaving part of the operational context to be inferred.

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 the schema already documents all eight parameters. The description adds little beyond the phrase 'away from a neutral plane', which helps interpret 'neutral' and 'faces', but it does not go beyond the schema baseline.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair: 'Taper faces away from a neutral plane'. This clearly identifies the draft feature and differentiates it from sibling operations like chamfer, fillet, or shell. The molded/cast context reinforces the geometric intent.

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 phrase 'the usual requirement for moulded or cast parts' gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the use case is specific enough for an agent to route correctly.

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