flange

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: the result unfolds in Flat Pattern, bend radius/depth tie to sheet thickness, and mitering only happens when a loop is passed in one call. It also explains bending direction relative to face ownership. It omits permission/auth needs and whether the feature is reversible (deletable via delete_feature), which keeps it below a 5.

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 core action, then the differentiator, then the critical multi-edge rule and bend-direction gotcha, then the arg list. Every line carries distinct information; nothing is redundant with the schema beyond intentional clarification.

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?

For a 7-parameter mutation tool with an output schema, the description plus schema cover the call mechanics almost completely, including the non-obvious mitering constraint. Minor gaps remain on failure modes (e.g. what happens if an edge is not on a sheet-metal face) and the multi-instance parameter, which the description doesn't mention.

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 14%, but the description nearly closes the gap: it documents edge_indices format (comma-separated, use find_edge), distance units and default (mm, 25), angle units and default (degrees, 90), auto_miter, miter_gap's 'GapSize' meaning (from sheet metal rule), and enumerates height_datum values with the default. The one remaining parameter, instance, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add a Sheet Metal Flange (bent wall) to one or more edges') and explicitly distinguishes itself from a sibling ('Real sheet-metal feature (vs Extrude)'). An agent can tell what it produces and how it differs from extrude without opening either schema.

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?

Gives a concrete usage rule: put all edges of a loop in ONE call so corners auto-miter, since separate calls leave open corners. It also routes to find_edge for locating edges and gives direction guidance (use the wall's inner-face edge for an inward flange). It does not compare against related siblings such as sheet_metal_face or corner_round, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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