add_swept_pipe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral load. It discloses that the profile is auto-generated perpendicular to the path, that bend_radius_mm is required when the path turns, what smooth=True does, and that it returns mass properties calculated as pi r^2 x path_length_mm. It does not cover error conditions or whether a new body/feature is created, keeping it below the top score.

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 front-loads the verb and resource in the first sentence, then spends each subsequent sentence on a distinct parameter or behavioral fact. There is no redundant restatement of the name or schema, and the prerequisite is placed at the end as a natural call-order note.

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?

Given zero annotation coverage, no output schema, and five undocumented-in-schema parameters, the description supplies enough to call the tool correctly: path format, required inputs, bend behavior, profile orientation, return values, and a document prerequisite. It is somewhat silent on error conditions and whether it creates a new body or feature, which are the remaining gaps.

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 so for the important parameters: path_mm format [[x,y]] in mm as a centreline on the Front plane, diameter_mm as outer Ø, bend_radius_mm behavior including the 2-point straight-path exception, and smooth as a spline alternative. Only 'name' is left undocumented, which is a minor defaulted parameter, so a 4 rather than 5 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb and resource — 'Sweep a circular profile (pipe/tube/rod) along a 2D path on the Front plane' — which an agent can readily distinguish from generic sweep or extrusion tools. It stops short of explicitly naming or contrasting the closest sibling (add_swept_profile), so it misses the top mark for sibling differentiation.

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 only explicit usage guidance is the prerequisite 'Use new_document first.' The description implies when to use it by describing the pipe geometry, but it never states when to prefer this over add_swept_profile, add_cylinder, or add_extruded_profile, nor does it give exclusions or conditions. That leaves selection guidance implied rather than stated.

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