set_sheet_metal_thickness

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a real side effect — that changing only thickness leaves the rule's bend radius and unfold method unmatched — but says nothing about persistence/undo, behavior when no active sheet metal style exists, or whether the change applies to the document or session.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the action and its precondition front-loaded before the alternative branch. Every clause conveys routing or consequence information.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the workflow/sibling routing is well covered. But for a mutation tool with no annotations and an undocumented numeric parameter, missing units and missing error conditions (no active sheet metal style, non-sheet-metal part) leave real gaps.

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 50%: `instance` is documented in the schema, while `thickness` has no description at all. The tool description never mentions thickness units (default 0.8), valid range, or how it relates to the active style, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 target ("Override the active sheet metal style's thickness") and explicitly contrasts with the sibling set_sheet_metal_rule. An agent knows exactly what changes and what doesn't.

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 precondition (after create_part(template="sheet_metal")), and names the alternative with the condition that selects it (named rules exist → use set_sheet_metal_rule), plus the reason the alternative is better. Explicit when/when-not routing.

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