Create a native radial pattern of selected bodies around a world-space axis. Set count, center, and sweep angle to duplicate geometry evenly for CAD arrays.
Create a native radial body pattern around a world-space axis.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | Yes | ||
| axis | Yes | ||
| count | Yes | ||
| intent | No | ||
| centerMm | Yes | ||
| revision | Yes | ||
| sweepDegrees | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation risk is conveyed structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: it never says whether the source bodies are consumed or retained, that a revision token is needed for optimistic concurrency, or what happens when the requested count conflicts with existing geometry. With no annotations covering those specifics, this is a real gap for a destructive modeling operation.
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?
One tight, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is also the source of the definition's gaps.
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 a 7-parameter, 5-required geometry-mutating tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, a single sentence is not enough. The agent lacks enough information to call this correctly on the first attempt.
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 7 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. The only semantic contribution is that 'axis' is world-space rather than local, which is genuinely useful. Nothing is said about ids, count, centerMm, sweepDegrees, or the required revision token.
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 ('Create a native radial body pattern') plus the axis scope, which distinguishes it from the face-oriented sibling plasticity_radial_face_pattern and from rectangular/curve patterns. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so differentiation requires the agent to infer it.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the closely related alternatives (plasticity_radial_face_pattern, plasticity_rectangular_pattern, plasticity_curve_pattern). The agent must guess from the name alone which patterning tool applies.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.