corner_round

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one meaningful trait beyond the name — the round propagates into the flat pattern — but says nothing about prerequisites (active sheet metal part, rule resolution), whether the radius is clamped by thickness, or whether the feature is editable/deletable afterwards.

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 purpose sentence followed by a compact Args block; nothing is padded. The parenthetical '(Corner Round — carried into the flat pattern)' is slightly awkward but earns its place by flagging flat-pattern propagation.

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, but for a geometry-mutating sheet metal tool with no annotations the description omits document/document-state prerequisites and the relationship to the edge-listing tool used to supply indices. Adequate to invoke, thin on context.

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 33%, and the description compensates well: it defines edge_indices as comma-separated indices of the short edges through the thickness at the corners, and gives units (mm) for radius. It stops short of five because it does not say how to obtain those indices (list_edges) or what happens when edge_indices is invalid.

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 names a specific verb and domain object ('Round sharp sheet metal corners') and adds the important scope note that the round is carried into the flat pattern. It is clear what the tool produces, but it never contrasts itself with the nearby fillet/chamfer siblings, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

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?

'Use on exposed corners people handle, e.g. mounting plate tabs' gives a concrete selection criterion rather than leaving usage implied. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g. use fillet/chamfer for non-sheet-metal edges), which keeps it 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.