Pad

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the tool mutates the model; destructiveHint=false, so it is not destructive. The description adds the symmetric behavior and length unit (mm), which is useful. However, it does not disclose that it creates a new pad feature, requires a planar closed sketch, or that it modifies the active document. More behavioral context would be helpful for a mutation tool.

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 concise sentence front-loaded with the primary action and parameter. It contains no filler and clearly conveys the essential operation plus the symmetric nuance. It is optimally sized for quick parsing.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. It omits crucial operational details such as the need for a closed planar sketch, how the feature integrates with the model, and the effect of the reversed parameter. An agent would need domain knowledge to call this correctly, which the description does not supply.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the length parameter (in mm) and the symmetric parameter (both directions), but it does not explain the reversed parameter at all, and 'name' is trivial. The sketch parameter is implied by 'Pad a sketch' but not elaborated. Since half the meaningful parameters lack explanation, the semantic coverage is insufficient.

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 action: 'Pad a sketch by `length` mm.' It names the verb (Pad) and the resource (sketch), and adds a specific detail about the symmetric parameter ('symmetric=True extrudes both directions'). This makes it distinct from sibling operations like pocket or revolve, which have different verbs and semantics.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pocket, revolve, or loft. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent is left to infer that 'pad' is for linear extrusion of a sketch, but it never explicitly says that or distinguishes it from other feature-creation tools.

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