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

The description reinforces the read-only nature (consistent with readOnlyHint annotation) by describing the output as an unfolded pattern. It adds behavioral details such as the output format and bend limit. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise at two sentences, front-loading the use case. The phrase 'Slice 1: at most 2 bends' is slightly unclear and could be reworded for better clarity. Overall, it is efficient but has a minor clarity issue.

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?

The description covers the core functionality and output, but it does not explain the term 'Slice 1', nor does it address edge cases like more than 2 bends or error scenarios. No information on prerequisites or permissions is provided. The presence of an output schema reduces the need for output details, but the description could be more complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'file' and 'code' are alternative input methods, and 'featureId' is optional to select a specific shape. However, it does not describe the expected formats of 'file' or 'code', nor does it clarify that all parameters are optional. This leaves some ambiguity.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to obtain the unfolded flat pattern of a bent sheet-metal part. It specifies the output format (Region with polylines, holes, bend lines, sketch plane) and a constraint (at most 2 bends). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on adding features or constraints.

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 tells when to use the tool ('when you need the unfolded flat pattern') and how to specify input (using 'file' or 'code', with optional 'featureId'). It implies a limitation to sheet-metal parts with up to 2 bends. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or recommend alternatives from the sibling tool list.

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