solid_sweep

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries most of the burden and does add real value: it discloses the side-effect (solid created along the trajectory) and that invalid path types fail fast with a clean error rather than an opaque AutoCAD failure. It does not say what happens to the source profile/path entities or what a caller gets back on success.

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?

Three short labeled lines (definition, side-effects, disambiguation) with the core operation front-loaded and no filler. Every clause carries either the action, the risk, or the disambiguation.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and annotations cover the safety profile. Given a 3-parameter mutation tool, the remaining gap is minor: nothing on layer fallback/current-layer behavior or on whether source entities are preserved.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds constraints not obvious from the schema alone: the profile must be *closed* and the path must be a *supported typed* curve. The layer parameter's effect is left to the schema, which documents it adequately.

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?

Names a specific verb (Create), a specific resource (ACIS 3DSOLID), and the exact operation (sweeping a closed profile along a typed curve path). The disambiguation line explicitly separates it from solid_extrude as the 'path-driven' variant, so an agent can distinguish it from the sibling without opening the 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?

The disambiguation line gives concrete use cases (pipes, ducts, rails) and the 'unsupported path types are refused' clause sets an expectation about inputs. It stops short of naming alternatives like solid_extrude/solid_revolve explicitly, so selection between the solid_* siblings still requires inference.

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