fusion_pattern_circular

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It confirms the operation applies a pattern to the feature's body, but is silent on whether this mutates the document irreversibly, creates new features alongside the original, requires specific document state, or what the return value is. For a state-modifying tool with zero annotation coverage, this is under-disclosed.

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?

One efficient sentence with no filler. It packs purpose, resource scoping, and axis clarification into a compact form. Minor deduction for slightly stilted phrasing, but every word earns 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?

For a moderately simple mutation tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core semantics adequately. However, it omits details like the effect of defaults (quantity=4, angle=360), whether the pattern replaces or duplicates the original feature, or what response to expect. Adequate but leaves the agent to infer common behaviors.

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 clarify parameters. It does clarify 'axis' (base-plane axis "x", "y", "z") and partially feature_id (the body/feature the pattern is applied to). However, 'quantity' and 'total_angle_deg' are left to their self-evident names/defaults. The description partially compensates for poor schema coverage but doesn't fully close the gap.

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 clearly states a specific operation (create a circular pattern) applied to a specific resource (body/feature identified by feature_id) around a base-plane axis. The grammar is slightly awkward ('produced by feature_id'), but it distinguishes reasonably from the sibling fusion_pattern_rectangular. A small deduction for not explicitly contrasting with siblings.

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?

Usage context is only implied—the name and 'circular pattern' suggest when to use it (vs. rectangular). There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of preconditions (e.g., the feature must already exist), and no reference to alternatives in the toolset. A sentence about when NOT to use it would help.

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