sheet_metal_face

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose one real behavior — thickness is taken automatically from the style, not passed as a parameter — and that the input must be a closed profile. It does not say what document state or rule is required, what happens if the style is unset, or whether the operation is undoable.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the qualifying context. No filler, though the terseness leaves useful prerequisites unstated.

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 described, but for an unannotated mutation tool the description omits key call preconditions — active document requirement, sheet metal rule being set, and how to obtain a valid sketch index. Adequate but clearly incomplete.

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 `sketch_index` has no description anywhere. The phrase 'from a closed sketch profile' hints at what `sketch_index` points to, but never says it is an index into the part's sketches or how to discover the correct value.

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 ('Create a base Sheet Metal Face') plus the object type it belongs to ('the first flat panel in a sheet metal part'), which implicitly distinguishes it from downstream features like flange or sheet_metal_cut. It is clear, though it never names those alternatives outright.

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?

'The first flat panel in a sheet metal part' implies this is the initial feature in a sequence, hinting at ordering. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention that a sheet metal rule/style should be set first, and no pointer to the sibling tools for subsequent features.

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