partdesign_polar_pattern

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond them — "(undoable)" — but says nothing about what new feature is created in the tree, whether it consumes the original feature, or how the result interacts with existing operations.

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?

A single compact sentence with the core action front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than tightness.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a 7-parameter mutation tool with zero schema descriptions the definition leaves too much unstated. The agent gets no guidance on how occurrences and angle combine, or what axis string values are acceptable beyond the default Z_Axis.

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 7 parameters, so the description must carry the burden and largely does not. It gestures at "feature(s)" and "around an axis" but gives no meaning for angle, occurrences, reversed, name, or doc_name, all of which have non-obvious semantics (e.g. angle vs. occurrences interaction).

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?

"Repeat PartDesign feature(s) around an axis" gives a concrete verb (repeat) and resource (PartDesign features), plus the internal type name PolarPattern. It is clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling patterns (partdesign_linear_pattern, partdesign_mirrored) that an agent must choose between.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance; the agent must infer that this is for rotational repetition rather than linear or mirror patterns. No prerequisites (body active, features selected) are stated.

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