add_circular_pattern

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds unit conventions (mm, degrees, kg) and a vague hint about inspecting "verified measurements and error evidence," but never states what geometry is destroyed, whether the pattern is additive to the feature tree, or how failures are surfaced — the boilerplate phrasing about "the independent native SOLIDWORKS engine" conveys nothing actionable.

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 sentences with the operation front-loaded, but the middle sentence about the "independent native SOLIDWORKS engine" is marketing filler, and the closing "inspect verified measurements and error evidence" is vague enough to add little. Space that could document parameters is spent on boilerplate.

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?

This is a destructive mutation with no output schema, no annotation-adjacent explanation of effects, and zero parameter documentation — the agent cannot determine from the definition which feature gets patterned or what happens on failure. Given the tool's complexity and the 0% schema coverage, the description falls well short of what is needed to invoke it correctly.

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% across four parameters, so the description must carry the burden and it does not. It implies mm for the two center coordinates via the unit sentence, but says nothing about what count means (minimum 2, angular distribution?), how the circular pattern's axis/angle is determined from only a center point, or what feature_name selects.

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?

"Add circular pattern" names a specific verb and resource, and the sibling list makes the contrast with add_linear_pattern/add_mirror obvious from the name alone. However, the description never says what is being patterned — no source feature, body, or sketch is identified even though none of the required parameters appear to reference one, which leaves the core operation underspecified.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing tells the agent to prefer this over add_linear_pattern, add_mirror, or a manual repeated feature, and no prerequisite state (open document, existing feature) is mentioned. The only routing signal is the tool name itself.

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