add_swept_profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does most of it: coordinate-frame mapping (u → world -Z, v → world +Y; path on Front plane), profile centering, corner-rounding behavior for both path and profile, and a volume formula. It stops short of saying whether the result is a new solid body, whether it merges with existing bodies, or what failure modes exist if the path precondition is violated.

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 and organized so each clause covers one parameter or rule, with no filler sentences. It is dense and arrow-notation-heavy, and the volume formula is arguably optional, but every sentence otherwise earns its place.

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?

It states the return ('Returns mass properties'), which is necessary since no output schema exists, and covers all the geometric call prerequisites. What remains missing is whether the sweep produces a standalone body and how it interacts with existing geometry — meaningful for a modeling tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 largely does: profile_mm and path_mm get format, units, construction plane and orientation rules, bend_radius_mm is tied to path corner rounding, and corner_radii_mm is tied to profile corner rounding with a cross-reference to add_extruded_profile. Only 'name' is left undocumented, which is a harmless cosmetic default.

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?

Opens with a precise verb+resource: sweep a closed profile along a 2D path. The parenthetical '(cross-section)' and the clause 'For non-round extrusions along a path' implicitly separate it from add_swept_pipe (round) and add_extruded_profile (straight), so an agent can pick it out of the sibling list without opening a 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?

Gives a concrete use case (rails, gaskets, trim, channels) plus a hard prerequisite ('Use new_document first') and a mandatory path constraint ('MUST start at the origin heading +X'). It never explicitly names a sibling to avoid, so the routing is implied by 'non-round' rather than stated.

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