add_swept_pipe

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and non-idempotent, so safety is covered structurally. Beyond that the description adds only unit conventions; it never says a feature is appended to the active part, whether repeated calls stack duplicate pipes, or what 'verified measurements and error evidence' concretely returns. For a destructive mutation with no output schema, that is a meaningful gap.

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, front-loaded with the operation and with no padding. The engine-backend clause is the only low-value sentence, but overall the definition is tight and easy to scan.

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?

Units and a verification instruction give an agent something to work with, but for a 5-parameter destructive geometry tool with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the definition omits too much about path format, degenerate cases, and error semantics to be self-sufficient.

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 5 parameters, so the description must carry the burden and largely does not. It clarifies that geometry is in mm/degrees/kg, which helps path_mm, diameter_mm, and bend_radius_mm, but says nothing about path_mm being a list of 2D points with at least two entries, what bend_radius_mm=0 means, or what smooth toggles.

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 verb+resource pair 'Add swept pipe' is concrete and tells the agent a solid feature is created. But there is no differentiation from near-identical siblings such as add_swept_profile, swept_region, or add_thread, so an agent cannot tell from the description which sweep-family tool applies. The trailing phrase about the 'independent native SOLIDWORKS engine' describes the backend, not the operation.

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 (active document, existing sketch or path), and no mention of alternatives among the many add_* siblings. The only actionable hint is 'Inspect verified measurements and error evidence,' which describes post-call verification rather than tool selection.

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