Offset Faces

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

Annotations already declare it is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds a genuinely useful cross-cutting rule about default units (cm not mm). However, it does not say whether the change is reversible/undoable, what happens to invalid face indices, or how face_selection interacts with body shape.

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, action first, unit caveat second. Nothing redundant and 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 mutating geometry tool with no output schema and only partial annotation detail, the description covers the operation and units but omits error behavior, undo semantics, and how face_indices vs face_selection precedence resolves. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 75% and already documents distance (cm, positive = outward) and face_selection, but the description adds a global unit convention ('unless a parameter says otherwise... cm not mm, angles in degrees') that the schema cannot express locally. body_name remains undocumented, so it is not a full 5.

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+resource+mechanism (push/pull faces of a body by a distance), which an agent can distinguish from adjacent tools like draft_faces, split_face, or scale_body. It does not explicitly name or contrast with those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is given. The agent has no signal for choosing this over draft_faces or scale_body, nor any prerequisite (e.g., an active design, existing body) spelled out.

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