edge_flange

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds the useful targeting context (acts on the selected edge or an indicated point), but says nothing about failure modes when no valid edge exists or whether it adds a feature to the feature tree that can be edited later.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb, resource, and target in order and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than true crispness.

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 explained, and 3 of 4 parameters are documented in-schema. Missing pieces are prerequisites/error behavior and any relationship to base_flange, which matter for a non-idempotent feature-creation tool.

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 75%, so baseline is 3. The description hints that edge_point_mm is the 'indicated edge' mechanism, which is the one parameter the schema leaves undocumented, but it gives no format or coordinate-frame detail to compensate for that gap.

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: 'Creates a sheet metal edge flange', plus the target ('selected or indicated edge'). An agent can tell this apart from base_flange by the word 'edge', but the description never names base_flange explicitly, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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 phrase 'selected or indicated edge' implies the prerequisite (an edge must already be selected, or supplied via edge_point_mm), but usage is only implied. There is no statement of when to choose this over base_flange, or what to do if no edge is selected.

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