set_sheet_metal_rule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does well: discloses case-insensitive matching, that three properties are changed atomically, and the error behavior for unknown names. It leaves unstated whether the change applies to the active document and whether a save is required, which is a real but modest gap 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?

Four short clauses, front-loaded with the action, then the effect, then the sibling preference, then the failure behavior. No filler and nothing redundant.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the unknown-name behavior is documented. Missing only document scope and persistence details that would matter before mutating sheet metal settings.

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 50%: 'instance' is documented in the schema, but 'name' has no schema description. The description compensates by explaining that name is a rule name, that matching is case-insensitive, and that a miss returns a list of valid values — semantics an agent cannot get from the bare string type.

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 (activate) and resource (sheet metal rule) plus the exact effect (sets thickness, bend radius and unfold method together). It explicitly contrasts itself with set_sheet_metal_thickness, so an agent can distinguish it from the closest sibling 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 an explicit preference rule: use this over set_sheet_metal_thickness whenever a matching rule exists. It also covers the failure path (unknown names return the available rules), which effectively routes the agent to list_sheet_metal_rules for discovery.

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