Create tubular coil

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a genuinely non-obvious behavioral trait: 'The document is locked exclusively during the operation', which tells the agent about concurrency/blocking. It also states validity constraints (positive millimetre values). What's missing is failure behavior (does the document remain locked on error?) and whether the result needs saving/recomputing.

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: the action and target lead, followed by constraints and the locking caveat. There is no filler, and the most important behavioral note is placed last as a warning.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the nested schema fully documents each field. The description supplies the prerequisite (existing document) and the exclusive-lock behavior, leaving only error/recovery and post-creation steps (save, recompute) unstated.

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?

The description names the four geometric parameters (coil_radius, tube_radius, num_turns, pitch) and repeats their positive-number/millimetre semantics, which the nested schema already documents in detail, while saying nothing about document_id, object_name, or workspace. Since the reported top-level schema coverage is 0% (the 'params' wrapper is undescribed), the description partially compensates but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Add') and a precise resource ('a tubular helix coil to an existing document'), plus the implementation approach (Part::Helix and pipe). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like create_box, create_cylinder, or tank, which produce different geometry in presumably new objects.

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 phrase 'to an existing document' implies the prerequisite that a document must already exist, which usefully narrows the call context. However, it never names an alternative (e.g., create_document first, or a plain helix tool if one exists) or states when not to use it, leaving usage to inference.

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