fusion_draft

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

Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) with potential side effects (openWorldHint=true). The description adds context about angle units and plane selection but does not disclose failure modes or reversibility. It does not contradict annotations.

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?

Two sentences: first states purpose, second provides parameter details. No redundant information, and critical details are front-loaded.

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?

Given the lack of output schema and the mutation nature of the tool, the description covers essential aspects: purpose, angle, plane, and faces behavior. It does not explain return values or error conditions, but for a drafting operation this is acceptable.

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 carries full burden. It explains that angle is in degrees, plane is a string (xy/xz/yz), and faces is a list of indices from fusion_list_faces or null for all. Body is not elaborated, but the description adds significant meaning to three of four parameters.

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 clearly states 'Apply draft to faces of a body,' identifying the specific operation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like fusion_fillet and fusion_chamfer by using the verb 'draft', though it does not explicitly differentiate.

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 provides usage hints such as angle in degrees and plane options (xy/xz/yz), and notes that faces can be omitted for all. However, it does not offer guidance on when to use draft over alternatives like fillet or chamfer, relying on implied context.

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