pull_faces

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

Annotations already declare that the tool mutates geometry, is non-destructive, and is closed-world. The description adds useful context that only planar faces are pulled and gives sizing examples, but it does not explain side effects on adjacent geometry, reversibility, or selection prerequisites.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by a useful exclusion. Every sentence carries actionable information without redundant restatement.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a mutation tool with low parameter coverage, the description omits prerequisites such as selecting a body or faces and does not clarify adjacency or failure constraints.

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 only 33%: distance is documented in the schema, while body and face_ids have no schema descriptions. The description adds only the planar-face constraint for face_ids, but does not explain the body identifier format or where face IDs come from.

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?

Names the specific operation (offset planar faces) and the outcome (change size, thicken a plate, deepen a pocket). It also distinguishes this from hole resizing by explicitly naming the alternative approach.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use examples and an explicit when-not-to-use case, directing hole resizing to cutting a larger cylinder instead. This leaves little ambiguity about selecting this tool versus an alternative.

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