sweep_profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the prerequisite that the profile must be closed and describes the output, but it does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether source entities are modified), permission requirements, failure conditions, or path restrictions. This is inadequate for a solid modeling operation with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single sentence of 12 words, front-loaded with the action and result. It includes no fluff or redundant details, and every word contributes value (closed, path curve, 3D solid, examples).

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 the tool complexity (3D solid creation), lack of annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is too sparse. It does not cover when to use this versus extrude_profile/revolve_profile, prerequisites beyond a closed profile, or potential side effects. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but other contextual gaps remain significant.

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?

The schema provides no descriptions and coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by specifying that the profile must be 'closed' and that the path is a 'curve', which loosely maps to profile_handle and path_handle. However, it does not explicitly define each parameter or explain parameter relationships beyond the general wording, so compensation is partial.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Sweep a closed 2D profile along a path curve' with an explicit outcome '-> 3D solid' and example uses (pipes, rails, gaskets). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like extrude_profile and revolve_profile by emphasizing the path curve.

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 implies usage by explaining what the tool does, and the examples give some context (pipes, rails, gaskets). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like extrude_profile or revolve_profile, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative tool references.

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