sweep_cut

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses the subtractive nature, an example return object (Feature with name, type, dimensions), and a caveat about v1 constraints. However, it does not explicitly state permance, prerequisites, or error conditions.

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 well-structured: definition, use cases, arguments, returns, caveat, and an example. It is slightly long but every section adds value. Could be more concise, but clear hierarchy compensates.

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 no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description covers purpose, parameters, output structure, and provides an example. It references but does not detail sweep_sketch constraints. Missing failure modes and prerequisites, but adequate for a CAD tool.

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?

The description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: explains profile_sketch_name as 'Closed profile sketch name (e.g., 'Croquis1' for cross-section)' and path_sketch_name as 'Path sketch name. Must be a different sketch than the profile'. With 0% schema coverage, this fully compensates.

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 the tool's action: 'subtract a swept-profile-along-path volume from existing material'. It uses specific verb (sweep cut) and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like extrude_cut or revolve_cut by emphasizing the swept path.

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 description lists standard autoparts uses (curved grooves, oil channels, etc.) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like extrude_cut or sweep_sketch. A caveat about 'same constraints as sweep_sketch' is present, but no when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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