add_circular_pattern

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses defaults (feature_name defaults to last feature, angle_deg default 360), axis resolution logic, and angle_spread semantics, which is meaningful. However it says nothing about return values, failure modes (e.g. missing feature/axis), or side effects on the feature tree.

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 action in the first sentence, then parameter detail and a workflow example. Dense but nearly every clause carries information; minor density in the axis sentence slightly hurts scannability.

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-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, parameter semantics are well covered, but the description omits what is returned and error/precondition behavior, leaving an agent guessing about outcomes.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and does: it explains axis (nearest cylindrical face to center, 'y', or a named reference axis), the role of center_x_mm/center_y_mm, feature_name defaulting, and angle_deg<360 spread behavior, with count defined in the opening sentence.

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: 'Repeat a feature count times evenly around 360° about an axis.' It is clearly distinguishable from add_linear_pattern and add_mirror by the circular/angular scope, though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings.

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?

Gives a concrete usage recipe (bolt circle: drill a centre hole plus one bolt hole, then pattern the bolt hole) and explains axis selection choices. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or a direct contrast with add_linear_pattern, so it stops short of 5.

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