Draft / Taper Faces

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful unit convention (cm and degrees by default), but says nothing about reversibility, permission/body-state requirements, or whether the operation can fail on degenerate faces.

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 tight sentences, with the core action front-loaded ahead of the unit caveat. No filler, though the trailing unit sentence could have been folded into the schema descriptions for the affected parameters.

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 5-parameter, no-output-schema mutation tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description is adequate but thinnest where it matters: it does not clarify how face_selection interacts with pull_direction_plane or how tangent chains are treated, leaving an agent to infer the geometry behavior.

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 80%, with enum values and defaults already documented for face_selection, pull_direction_plane, and is_tangent_chain. The description adds a global unit convention for lengths and angles, but the caveat 'unless a parameter says otherwise' is vague and no parameter is named, so it adds little beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (add) and resource (draft angle to faces of a body) and gives the engineering rationale (mold release / injection molding). It is clearly distinguishable from nearby face-modifying siblings like offset_faces or split_face, though it does not name them explicitly.

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 explains why one would draft (mold release), but never states when to use this tool versus sibling alternatives such as offset_faces or shell, nor any prerequisites (e.g., body must exist, direction of pull drives face selection). No exclusions or context triggers are given.

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