fusion_loft

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

Annotations indicate this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and creates objects (openWorldHint=true). The description adds that the result is a smooth solid and requires closed profiles, which is beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction detected.

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 two sentences, front-loads the verb 'Loft', and conveys all essential information without extraneous text. Every sentence adds value.

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?

While the description covers input requirements well, it lacks details on the 'operation' parameter, error conditions (e.g., non-closed profiles), and what the output is (though no output schema exists). For a complex operation like lofting, more context about behavior with invalid inputs would improve completeness.

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?

The description explains that the 'sketches' parameter expects a list of sketch indices or names and requires at least two. However, the 'operation' parameter is not mentioned at all, and the schema description coverage is 0%, so the description partially compensates but leaves a gap.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Loft a smooth solid') and the resource ('profiles taken from a list of sketch indices/names'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like fusion_extrude or fusion_sweep by specifying the method (lofting between profiles in order).

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 explicit prerequisites: a list of at least two sketches, each containing one closed profile, and in order. While it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use, the context is clear for typical loft scenarios.

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