sweep_profile_along_path

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses the parallel-transport orientation method, the guarantee that the tube doesn't crease on vertical turns, and a validity report with min_clearance_ratio semantics ('below 1.0 means rings overlap inside the bend'). It omits side effects like where the object lands in the scene/collection and whether existing objects are affected, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then a use-case line, then a structured Args block where every entry earns its place by supplying information absent from the schema. Slightly long, and the Returns section partially duplicates the output schema, but there is little waste.

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 an 8-parameter geometry tool with no annotations and a 0%-covered schema, the definition supplies purpose, use cases, per-parameter semantics, the spline method, and an interpretation of the validity report. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate fully, and it does: it documents path_points bounds (2-2000, distinct consecutive points), profile enum values, radius sign constraint, sides range with an explicit 'ignored by fixed-sided profiles' note, resolution meaning and recommended range, twist units, and caps behavior. Per-parameter meaning is unambiguous.

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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource ('Sweep a closed profile along a 3D path to make a solid tube') and immediately disambiguates from siblings like create_curve, create_threaded_shaft and analyze_sweep_path by naming the concrete artifacts it produces (hoses, handrails, wires, roads). An agent can select it without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use context ('anything that follows a route') with a list of example use cases, which is strong positive guidance. However, it never names or defers to alternatives such as analyze_sweep_path (for checking an existing path) or create_curve, and states no exclusions or prerequisites.

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