Three CAD/toolpath tools with moderate schema coverage but significant description and naming gaps. All tools have input schemas with types, but descriptions are generic and lack LLM-optimized guidance. Parameter descriptions are sparse. No output schemas documented. Tool names use noun-heavy patterns (generate_gcode, optimize, from_path) rather than clear verb-noun conventions. Missing error handling guidance, no idempotency hints, no confirmation patterns for destructive WRITE operations.

• Rename tools with clear action verbs: 'generate_gcode_from_mesh', 'optimize_toolpath', 'generate_gcode_from_path'. This makes intent obvious before reading descriptions.
• Expand tool descriptions to 100-200 chars with WHEN/WHY guidance: 'Generate optimized G-code from 3D mesh geometry. Use this when you have a CAD model; use from_path for simple 2D shapes. Returns G-code string and estimated machining time.'
• Document output schemas: specify that generate_gcode returns {gcode: string, time_minutes: number, tool_changes: array}. This enables LLMs to chain calls and extract results.
• Add parameter descriptions for complex objects: 'mesh: 3D geometry object with vertices (array of [x,y,z]) and faces (array of face indices). Required.' and 'tool: {diameter_mm: number, flute_count: int, material: string}. All fields required.'
• Add confirmation pattern for WRITE operations: 'This tool modifies CNC machine state. Consider calling with dry_run=true first to preview G-code before execution.' or offer a separate preview_gcode tool.