add_circular_pattern

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose real behavioral semantics the schema lacks — that `count` includes the original instance and that `angle` is a total span rather than a per-instance increment — which prevents off-by-one patterning errors. It says nothing about permissions, whether the pattern is reversible, or the relationship to the sibling `transaction` tool, which are significant gaps for a model-mutating operation.

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-loads the action in one sentence, follows with a motivating example, then a tight Args block. Every line carries usable information; the minor restatement of defaults is inherent to docstring formatting and costs nothing.

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 no explanation, and all meaningful parameters receive semantic treatment. For a single-purpose feature-creation call this is complete enough to invoke correctly on the first try, with only transaction/undo behavior left implicit.

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 only 20% (just `instance`), so the description must compensate and largely does: `feature_index` is sourced from `list_features()`, `count` is defined as total including the original, `angle` as total span with 360 meaning full circle, and `axis` constrained to X/Y/Z with a flange-oriented default. Only `instance` is left to the schema, which already documents it.

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?

Uses a specific verb and resource ('Create a circular (rotational) pattern of a feature') and scopes it to a work axis, so the action is unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling `draw_pattern`, which an agent could plausibly reach for instead — that differentiation is the only missing piece.

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 bolt-hole/flange example gives a concrete usage context and even a rationale ('one hole + add_circular_pattern instead of 8 holes'), which is more than bare implication. But there are no exclusion conditions and no mention of when `draw_pattern` or manual duplication would be the right choice, so the agent must infer the boundaries.

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