fusion_pattern_rectangular

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only adds that the pattern is aligned to the body's own X/Y axes, but fails to mention whether the original feature is kept, how copies are generated, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently states the core operation and axis alignment, though it sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this one-sentence description is incomplete. Critical details such as quantity semantics, spacing units, coordinate system implications, and expected outcomes are missing, making correct invocation uncertain.

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%, and the description does not explain the meaning or usage of quantity_x, quantity_y, spacing_x_mm, or spacing_y_mm. It only names feature_id, which duplicates the schema field, and adds no detail about defaults, units, or how the params interact.

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 identifies the operation ('rectangular pattern') and the affected resource ('body/feature produced by feature_id'), and adds directional context ('along the body's own X and Y directions'). This clearly distinguishes it from circular pattern and mirror siblings, though it could be more explicit about creating copies.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like fusion_pattern_circular or fusion_mirror. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context clues beyond the implicit 'rectangular' in the name and description.

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