fusion_create_feature

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the need to query entity tokens beforehand and to inspect feature health afterward, which implies the tool depends on prior queries and may produce unhealthy results. However, it does not disclose side effects like whether bodies are modified destructively, whether operation is reversible, or what happens on failure. This is partial transparency – enough to hint at workflow but not a complete safety profile.

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 three concise sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose, then gives essential usage tips in a logical order (prerequisite, then post-check). Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is easy to parse.

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 tool's complexity – 14+ parameters across 10 feature kinds, no output schema, and no annotations – the description is inadequate. It omits how to specify feature parameters (e.g., valid 'kind' values, units for distance/angle, how operation affects existing geometry). An agent would struggle to call this correctly without additional knowledge not present in the schema or description.

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 schema coverage is 0% for top-level parameters and only has a description for 'entities'. The description adds meaning to 'entities' (query tokens) and 'component' (owning component), but the many other parameters (distance, angle, operation, axis, etc.) are left entirely to the schema, which has no descriptions beyond enums. The description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation, leaving most parameters ambiguous for the agent.

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 opens with 'Create extrude/revolve/sweep/loft, fillet/chamfer/shell, booleans, or patterns', which clearly states the tool's purpose – creating a broad range of features. This verb-resource pair distinguishes it from siblings like fusion_create_sketch or fusion_create_holes, and the enumeration of feature types leaves no ambiguity about what it does.

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 gives explicit workflow guidance: 'Query entity tokens first; supply their owning component' and 'Inspect feature health after edits'. This tells the agent when and how to use the tool, including prerequisites and post-conditions. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the guidance is actionable and context-specific.

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