Polar Pattern

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds little beyond that. It does not disclose whether the operation creates a new feature in the active body, whether it modifies the document, what prerequisites exist, or what side effects occur. The behavioral burden is mostly unmet.

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, front-loads the core action, and uses a short parameter list with defaults and edge-case notes. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 6-parameter tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers the essential modeling parameters but misses prerequisites like active document/body requirements and the meaning of reversed. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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 carry parameter meaning. It usefully documents axis forms, angle_deg default, and that occurrences includes the original. However, it leaves reversed and name undocumented and does not clarify feature selection beyond the opening sentence.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Repeat a PartDesign feature around an axis.' This clearly distinguishes polar_pattern from sibling tools like linear_pattern and mirrored, which use different pattern geometries.

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 implies the use case: repeat a feature circularly around an axis. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over linear_pattern, mirrored, or other pattern tools, and it gives no exclusion criteria.

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