add_linear_pattern

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context by fixing units to mm, degrees and kg and by pointing at verification/error evidence afterward, but it never says what the operation creates or overwrites in the model tree (new patterned features? consumes the seed feature?).

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 definition is short and the operation is front-loaded, which is good. But the closing sentence 'Inspect verified measurements and error evidence' is vague boilerplate that does not tell the agent what to do with it, so one of three sentences does not fully earn 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?

This is a destructive modeling operation with zero schema description coverage and no output schema, which is the case where the description must do the most work. Instead it omits prerequisites, what geometry is produced, how failures surface, and what direction and feature_name accept, leaving the agent under-equipped to call 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%, so the description carries the burden, and it only partially does: 'units are mm' implicitly explains spacing_mm, but count, direction (default '+x', valid axis strings undocumented) and feature_name (which feature to pattern, or null behavior) are never mentioned. Two of the four parameters remain semantically opaque.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Add linear pattern'), and the word 'linear' distinguishes it from siblings such as add_circular_pattern and add_mirror without needing their schemas. It does not, however, say what is being patterned or what the result attaches to, so the purpose is clear but shallow.

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, no prerequisite (e.g. a selected feature or body must exist), and no routing to alternatives like add_circular_pattern or add_mirror. The agent must infer from the name alone that this replicates an existing feature along a direction.

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