fcoh_build

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the output location and the asynchronous nature of Fusion, but it leaves out other relevant behavior such as repeatability, failure behavior, or what the tool returns.

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 two sentences with no fluff: it front-loads the primary action, then gives cad options and the async caveat. Every sentence contributes and the structure helps quick scanning.

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 simple two-parameter tool, the description conveys the output path and the key behavioral difference between cad modes. It is incomplete about the required `file` parameter and the `job_id` scoping, but overall it still gives an agent enough to select the tool safely.

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 for both parameters. It adds meaning to the cad parameter by naming the valid values and the async consequence, but the required `file` parameter is never explained, leaving its format and role ambiguous.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Create a NEW part under outputs/<job_id>'), making the primary function unmistakable. It also distinguishes this build tool from status checking by pointing to fcoh_status for the Fusion async case.

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?

It gives clear usage guidance: 'Fusion is asynchronous; use fcoh_status' tells the agent when to follow up with a sibling tool. However, it does not explicitly address when not to use other siblings like fcoh_validate or fcoh_capabilities.

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