loft_sketches

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose that sketches may lie on any plane, that the loft direction follows them, a twisting caveat, and that mass properties are returned. It does not say whether a new body is created or merged, what happens with open/non-closed sketches, or failure behavior, leaving meaningful gaps for a mutation 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?

The opening sentence front-loads purpose and scope, and the following sentences each add distinct value (plane freedom, sibling contrast, twist-avoidance tip, return value). Slightly dense but no filler.

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 two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers direction, ordering, geometric prerequisites, a practical tip, and return values. Only the meaning of the 'name' parameter and body-creation semantics remain unaddressed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate; 'by name, in order' usefully clarifies that the sketches array is a list of sketch names whose sequence controls the loft. The 'name' parameter (default 'Loft') is never explained, so the agent must infer it names the resulting feature.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Loft through 2+ closed sketches of the current part'), adds the ordering constraint ('by name, in order'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling add_lofted_solid by noting that sibling stacks along +Z.

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?

It tells the agent the prerequisite workflow (add_plane, then add_sketch on it, or use a person's sketches) and names the alternative tool add_lofted_solid with the condition that separates them. There is no explicit 'do not use for X' exclusion, which keeps it just below a 5.

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