circular_pattern

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, so the agent knows this mutates the model and repeat calls may stack. The description adds geometric semantics (axis through origin vs edge-based axis) but says nothing about what gets created in the feature tree, whether the original feature is consumed, or what happens on failure — meaningful gaps for a mutation tool.

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 core operation, then the axis explanation as a secondary paragraph. No filler, though the line-broken formatting is a little awkward and the `reverse` omission means the size isn't the issue — content is.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description handles the trickiest parameter (edge-axis definition) well; the remaining gap is the undocumented `reverse` flag and no statement of where the resulting feature lands.

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 only 33%, and the description carries real weight for `axis` and `axis_edge_point`, which are barely documented in the schema — that is genuine added value. But `reverse` is never mentioned in either place, and `angle_deg` semantics are only implied by 'spread evenly over angle_deg'. The partial coverage and the undocumented flag pull this to a 3.

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: 'Repeats features ... around an axis', with the meaning of count (total copies, original included) and the angular spread spelled out. It is functionally distinguishable from siblings like linear_pattern or mirror, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Useful implied guidance: features come from get_feature_tree, so the agent knows it must look up feature names first. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs linear_pattern/mirror, and no stated precondition such as which document or body the pattern applies to.

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