create_construction_axis

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully explains that the normal_to_face_by_geometry mode 'finds the face whose normal matches' and specifies units in mm. However, it does not describe side effects, failure modes, what document/workspace is affected, or what happens if no matching face is found.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: a one-line purpose statement followed by two short mode-specific bullet lines. Every sentence adds useful information with no redundancy or filler.

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 6-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides enough detail to invoke both construction modes correctly, including units and face-normal matching behavior. It is slightly incomplete because it omits the purpose of the name parameter and gives no indication of return values or errors, but the core invocation context is well covered.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does. It defines p1 and p2 as [x, y, z] arrays in mm, defines kind values, and explains body plus face_normal usage for the second mode. It does not describe the optional name parameter, preventing a perfect score.

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?

The description starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a construction axis.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like create_construction_plane and create_construction_point by naming the exact object type. It further clarifies purpose by enumerating the two axis-construction kinds.

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 description gives clear context for when to use each of the two kinds: 2_points for point-based axes and normal_to_face_by_geometry for face-normal-based axes. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the mode-specific guidance is sufficient for most selection decisions.

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