create_linear_pattern

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it uses this well by disclosing a non-obvious behavioral requirement: Onshape has no implicit world-X axis, so the directionEdgeId is mandatory. It also explains how to satisfy that requirement. It does not discuss side effects or errors, but the create semantics are reasonably transparent from context.

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 compact, well-structured, and front-loaded with the core purpose before the key requirement and workflow. Every sentence contributes useful information, and there is no fluff or repetition of schema-defined details.

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 mutating tool with no output schema and 8 parameters, the description covers the hardest part—obtaining and passing directionEdgeId—and references a sibling tool (list_entities) for further help. It does not mention how to obtain featureIds or what happens after creation, but those gaps are partially covered by the schema and surrounding sibling tools, so the description is nearly complete.

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 100%, which sets a baseline of 3. The description adds real value on top by explaining that directionEdgeId must come from list_entities(kinds=['edges']) or from a dedicated sketch line, and by walking through the intended workflow. This goes beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 opens with 'Create a linear pattern of features' — a specific verb and resource that clearly identifies what the tool does. The emphasis on a direction edge and the word 'linear' naturally distinguish this from create_circular_pattern without needing to name the sibling.

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 gives clear workflow context: a deterministic edge id must be obtained first, either from list_entities or from a sketch line drawn as a reference. It does not explicitly contrast with create_circular_pattern or say 'use this for straight-line patterns', so it stops short of full alternatives guidance.

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