add_lofted_solid

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains coordinate system, units, profile ordering, twist avoidance, ruled vs smooth blending, return value, and prerequisite. It does not detail failure modes or explicitly state that the operation is additive, but the name and 'add' imply that.

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 front-loaded; the first sentence states the core operation, and subsequent lines add only necessary constraints, alternatives, and return behavior. There is no filler or redundant restating of the schema.

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 complex loft operation with no schema descriptions, annotations, or output schema, the description covers input format, constraints, behavior, alternatives, return type, and prerequisite. The only missing piece is the exact structure of the returned mass properties, which is a minor gap.

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%, but the description fully documents both required parameters: profiles_mm as nested coordinate arrays in Front-plane coordinates, and heights_mm as +Z offsets with length, ordering, and start constraints. The optional name parameter is not described, but it has a default and is low-risk.

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 and resource: 'Loft (blend) 2+ closed polygon profiles on parallel planes stacked along +Z.' It clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from siblings by naming alternatives for round shapes. This is far more informative than a tautology.

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 explicitly says to use add_revolved_profile/add_cone for round shapes and instructs 'Use new_part first,' providing both an exclusion and a prerequisite. However, the phrase 'non-rotational transitions' is slightly confusing because round shapes are typically rotational, so the guidance is not perfectly unambiguous.

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