add_occ_shape

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool updates the JCAD document at jcad_path and that pythonocc-core is required. However, it does not explain exactly what 'update' entails (e.g., overwrites, appends, in-place), how the shape string should be interpreted, or potential failure modes. This is partial disclosure but leaves key behaviors ambiguous.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: the purpose is stated first, followed by prerequisites, parameter details, return type, and a critical warning. Every sentence earns its place, and the param list adds value given the schema's lack of descriptions. The only slight issue is the omission of jcad_path in the param list, but the warning covers it implicitly.

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?

The tool is complex, has no annotations, and no output schema. The description covers purpose, prerequisites, side effects, and param meanings, but leaves significant gaps: how to specify the shape string, what transformations are applied relative to the current coordinate system, and what happens on error or missing dependencies. Given the complexity, these omissions make the description incomplete though not misleading.

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 compensate. The :param block explains five of six parameters (shape, name, position, rotation_axis, rotation_angle) with brief meanings, including units for rotation_angle. Notably, jcad_path is omitted from the param block, only mentioned in the warning. The descriptions are terse and do not explain the shape format or defaults, providing only partial compensation.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Add an OpenCascade TopoDS shape to the document.' This specifies the verb (add), resource (document), and the type of shape (OpenCascade TopoDS). It distinguishes itself from primitive shape tools (add_box, add_cone) and file-based tools (add_step_file) by explicitly naming TopoDS.

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 description provides useful context: it requires pythonocc-core, updates the document, and instructs the agent to first call 'get_current_cad_design' to understand the document state. However, it does not explicitly compare against sibling tools or state exclusion criteria, so it falls short of a 5.

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