fusion_cam_generate

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states the operation is asynchronous, returns a job ID, and should be polled rather than re-invoked. It does not mention side effects on the document or auth requirements, but the core execution model is well covered.

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 compact, front-loaded, and contains no filler. Every sentence adds operational value: what it starts, what it returns, how to monitor it, and what not to do.

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 simple asynchronous start-job tool, the description gives enough context to invoke it correctly: job creation, polling target, and timeout behavior. It does not cover error handling or the exact role of each parameter, but the core workflow is well specified.

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 0%, and the description adds no explanation for document_id, operation_id, or cam_operation_ids. The names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the distinction between the singular operation_id and the plural cam_operation_ids is not clarified, leaving meaningful 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 uses a specific verb and resource: "Start asynchronous toolpath generation" and "return a job ID." It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling fusion_cam_job by telling the agent to poll that tool, making its role unmistakable.

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 gives explicit workflow guidance: start the job, poll fusion_cam_job, and do not resubmit on timeout. This is action-oriented instruction that prevents a common misuse pattern (retrying a long-running job).

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