nx_rectangular_pattern

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Create', implying a mutation, but does not mention side effects, dependencies on existing geometry, or failure conditions. This adds little beyond what the tool name already suggests.

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 a single sentence with no filler, front-loaded action and object. It is easily parsed and appropriately concise, even if too terse for full utility.

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 tool with six required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is severely incomplete. It omits prerequisites like an active part, definitions of counts and pitches, and any expected behavior. An agent cannot safely invoke it without more supporting information.

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 description coverage is 0%: the schema has no property descriptions and the description mentions only 'featureId', without explaining countX, pitchX, countY, or pitchY. With six required parameters, the description provides essentially no semantic value to an agent trying to fill them correctly.

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 a specific action ('Create') and resource ('rectangular native feature pattern'), and names the key input ('exact feature id'). This is enough to distinguish it from sibling creation tools like nx_create_rectangle_sketch or nx_extrude, though it doesn't fully elaborate the pattern dimensions.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The intended use is only implied by the action 'Create', leaving the agent to infer that an active part and an existing feature are needed.

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