nx_circular_pattern

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers the critical side-effect semantics: the original body is kept, new instances are independent bodies, and they are NOT united. It also clarifies that count includes the original and that angle is the total sweep, preventing the most common modeling mistakes.

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 paragraphs, front-loaded with the operation, then the two parameters most likely to be misused, then the unite alternative. No filler sentences.

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 described, and the behavioral and count/angle semantics are covered. The main omissions are the undocumented 'reverse' flag and any note on required preconditions (e.g., an open part, valid body_id).

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for two parameters: 'count' (total including original, count=4 yields 4 bodies) and 'angle' (total sweep in degrees, 360.0 distributes evenly). However, 'reverse', 'axis', and 'body_id' get no treatment beyond their titles, leaving real gaps at 0% coverage.

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 and resource ('Pattern a body') plus the exact manner ('circularly about an axis through center'), so the agent can distinguish it at a glance from nx_linear_pattern and nx_mirror. Nothing about the operation's intent is left ambiguous.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to a sibling when merging is needed ('use nx_unite if merging is required'), which is the key decision point for this tool. It does not spell out prerequisites such as an open part or how to pick circular vs. linear patterning, but the operational context is clear.

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