polar_pattern

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It does disclose geometry behaviour ('evenly spaced', angle semantics) and delegates fusing to linear_pattern, but it does not state side effects: whether the original is preserved, how doc/name/result_name mutate the document, or error conditions.

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?

Two compact sentences with the core action front-loaded and zero filler. Every clause carries information.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values needn't be described. However, for a document-mutating tool with 0 param coverage and no annotations, the description omits document/name/result_name semantics and mutation side effects, leaving gaps an agent would want filled.

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 coverage is 0% across 8 params. The description meaningfully explains center, count, total_angle_deg, and implicitly axis, but leaves doc, name, result_name, and the exact fuse semantics ('same as linear_pattern') to prior knowledge. Partial compensation warrants a 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('rotate copies of an object about an axis through center') and precisely explains the count/total_angle_deg semantics. It also distinguishes itself from linear_pattern and names a concrete use case (bolt circles), so an agent can separate it from 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?

The phrase 'Use for bolt circles' gives a clear use context, and the reference to linear_pattern positions it relative to an alternative. It lacks explicit when-not conditions or prerequisite notes, but the intended scenario is clear.

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