sweep

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation, so the safety bar is partly covered. The description adds real behavioral detail: default behavior adds material while cut=True removes it, and the sketch-state prerequisite that otherwise causes failure. It does not mention what feature/body the result attaches to, but that is minor.

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?

Four compact lines, front-loaded with what the tool makes and then per-parameter notes. Tight and readable; the parenthetical examples could arguably be trimmed but they add disambiguation value.

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 need not be described. For a 4-parameter feature-creation tool the description covers purpose, prerequisites, parameter alternatives, and add-vs-cut semantics — enough to call it correctly. A note on which body/feature the result joins, or behavior on self-intersecting paths, is the only missing piece.

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 only 25% (only circle_diameter_mm is documented), so the description must compensate and largely does: it explains path_sketch accepts open or closed curves, profile_sketch must be a closed sketch on a plane crossing the path start, the empty-profile/circle_diameter_mm fallback, and the meaning of cut. Only units and the default-0 semantics for circle_diameter_mm live solely in the schema.

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+resource ('Sweeps a profile along a path') and gives concrete CAD use cases (pipes, springs, handles, grooves) that distinguish it from sibling features like extrude, revolve, loft, and rib. An agent can tell what it produces 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?

Explicitly states prerequisites: sketches must be closed first (end_sketch), and the profile must lie on a plane crossing the path start. Also offers the alternative of leaving profile_sketch empty and using circle_diameter_mm. It does not compare sweep against loft/revolve/rib when both could apply, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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