draw_pattern

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does add useful behavioral context: units are mm, coordinates define the first copy, dx/dy are pitches, pcd/count/start_angle control circular layouts, and slots/rectangles rotate with the circle. It still omits important operational details such as whether the sketch must already exist, which document is affected, and what errors or side effects occur on invalid input.

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 description is compact and well-structured for a 17-parameter tool: a front-loaded purpose statement, separate Grid and Circle explanations, and an Args section for shape-specific semantics. Every section contributes useful information without excessive repetition.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, 17 parameters, and the presence of an output schema, the description is quite complete: it covers pattern modes and nearly all parameter meanings. It could be stronger by explicitly stating prerequisites, active-document behavior, and how it differs from feature-level patterning siblings.

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 6%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does. It explains x/y placement, dx/dy pitch, rows/columns, pcd/count/start_angle for circular patterns, the shape-dependent meanings of diameter/length/width/corner_radius, angle behavior, and sketch_index. The remaining instance parameter is documented in the schema itself.

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 clearly states that this tool places many copies of one shape in a sketch, with concrete examples such as vent slots, hole grids, and bolt circles. It also distinguishes grid patterns from circular patterns. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like add_circular_pattern or draw_slot, but the core purpose is clear.

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?

Usage is implied through examples and the split between Grid and Circle modes, which helps an agent understand intended scenarios. However, the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of draw_slot, draw_rectangle, add_circular_pattern, or other siblings, nor does it list exclusions or prerequisites.

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