add_sheet_metal_face

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does add one valuable disclosure: thickness is taken automatically from the style rather than from a parameter. It says nothing about required preconditions (valid sheet metal style, closed non-self-intersecting profile) or failure behavior, leaving meaningful gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its scope. The clause about automatic thickness could be folded into the first sentence, but there is no filler.

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, and the two-parameter surface is small. Still, an agent lacks the preconditions for a successful call (sheet metal environment, closed profile, style availability) and any hint of what `sketch_index` addresses.

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 only 50%: `instance` is documented in-schema but `sketch_index` has no description anywhere. The description's mention of a "closed sketch profile" gestures at the sketch input but never explains that the index selects a sketch from the model tree, so it fails to compensate for the gap.

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 ("Create a base Sheet Metal Face") and clarifies it is the first flat panel of a sheet metal part, which implicitly separates it from follow-on features like add_flange or sheet_metal_cut. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so it lands just short of a 5.

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 first flat panel in a sheet metal part" implies when to reach for this tool (the initial face, before flanges/cuts), but the description never states prerequisites such as a sheet metal style being active or a closed profile existing, nor does it name alternatives. Usage must be inferred.

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