circular_pattern

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses useful mechanics such as count including the original and angle representing total span, but it does not state that this mutates the document, whether it needs an active document/transaction, or how failures are handled.

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 purpose and ideal use case are front-loaded, followed by a compact Args list. Every line adds practical information without redundancy.

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 description is complete enough for a CAD patterning operation: it explains the main parameters, the default axis, and the intended workflow. The main remaining gap is operational context around document state, transaction behavior, and mutation side effects, but the output schema covers return values.

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 20%, but the description compensates well: feature_index points to list_features(), count is explicitly total including the original, angle is total span with 360 meaning full circle, and axis defaults to Z for flanges. The only undocumented parameter is instance, which the schema itself explains.

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 states a specific verb and resource: create a circular pattern of a feature around an axis. It clarifies the operation enough to distinguish it from generic feature creation, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from nearby siblings like sketch_pattern or hole_linear.

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 flange/bolt-hole example gives a clear, concrete use case and implicitly tells the agent when this tool is preferable to repeating a feature manually. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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