Stitch Surfaces

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 genuinely useful unit convention (cm and degrees), but it omits whether the input bodies are consumed by the stitch, what happens on tolerance failure, and that at least two bodies are required — all relevant for a mutating operation.

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 and the units caveat second. No filler, though the second sentence is a broad convention statement rather than tool-specific detail.

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 2-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations covering side effects, the description leaves real gaps: whether input bodies survive the operation, the minimum-two-bodies constraint, and any failure conditions. The units note helps but does not fill those behavioral holes.

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 50%: tolerance is documented as '(cm)', but body_names has no description. The description partially compensates by clarifying that lengths are in cm not mm, which disambiguates the tolerance unit, but it says nothing about the body_names array semantics (orientations, ordering, whether all bodies are consumed).

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 (stitch) and resource (surface bodies) and the resulting output (single body), which cleanly separates it from siblings like patch_surface, thicken_surface, and boolean_operation. It stops short of naming any sibling it is distinct from, so differentiation relies on the agent's inference.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives (e.g., patch_surface for closing gaps vs. stitch for joining coincident edges). The only contextual help is a units convention, which is parameter interpretation rather than usage direction.

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