pattern_circular

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers the most valuable disclosure here: the pattern is verified by comparing model volume before and after, and a pattern that didn't change volume is reported as an error rather than a false success. This is real behavioral context beyond anything in the structured fields. It does not cover permissions or whether the operation is reversible, leaving a minor gap.

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?

Front-loaded with a one-line purpose, then a tight paragraph on execution and self-verification. Every sentence carries information; nothing is restated or padded.

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 described, and the description still adds the critical failure-mode behavior (volume-unchanged reported as error) that an agent must anticipate. With no annotations, it could say more about permissions or side effects, but coverage is otherwise solid for a single nested-object parameter.

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 100%, so axis, angle, count, features, and equal_spacing are already documented in the schema. The description only names 'axis' and 'features' and adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides — the baseline 3 applies.

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 — patterning features around an axis — and clarifies it operates on named features selected with a named axis, which separates it from the sketch-level sketch_circular_pattern. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so distinction requires inference from the word 'features'.

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 states what happens procedurally ('Selects the named axis and features, then creates a circular pattern') but gives no when-to-use conditions, prerequisites, or comparison against alternatives like sketch_circular_pattern. The agent gets no signal about when this tool is the right choice versus a sketch pattern or mirror.

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