Gear: Helical Front View

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

Annotations only mark destructiveHint false, so the description carries most of the behavioral burden. It discloses determinism, the geometric construction detail (40 pts/flank, circle set), optional bore/keyway, and the handle+metadata return shape—valuable beyond the schema. It could mention whether the operation inserts entities into the active drawing, but the handle return implies this.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and geometry output, then the downstream workflow note. Every clause earns its place; no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

Given the rich input schema, output schema, and the workflow hint toward gear_draw_section_aa, the description is complete for correct selection and invocation. It captures deterministic behavior, output contents, and return contract without needing to restate parameter documentation.

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 description coverage is 80%, and parameter descriptions already include defaults, ranges, and formulas. The tool description adds only 'optional bore + keyway', which mirrors schema default nulls; it contributes little parameter meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 identifies a specific operation: generating a deterministic helical gear front view, with concrete elements (involute outline, pitch/base/outer/root circles, helix symbol, bore/keyway). This clearly separates it from gear_draw_spur_front_view and gear_draw_section_aa.

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?

It provides clear context: use this for a helical gear front view, and the returned metadata is explicitly meant for downstream gear_draw_section_aa. It lacks an explicit exclusion such as 'use gear_draw_spur_front_view for spur gears', but the workflow context is enough to route an agent.

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