polar_pattern

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It explains some parameter behavior such as the default angle and that occurrences includes the original, but it omits mutation/reversibility, feature dependency, permission needs, and what happens to the source feature.

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 front-loaded, compact, and each line adds specific information about parameters or defaults. There is 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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to specify the required feature, what name or reversed do, or the tool's side effects in the document.

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 meaningfully explains axis syntax, angle_deg default, and occurrences semantics, but leaves the required feature parameter, name, and reversed undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Repeat a PartDesign feature around an axis.' This clearly identifies a polar patterning operation, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like linear_pattern or mirrored beyond the axis-based operation.

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 no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It does not mention linear_pattern, mirrored, or conditions under which polar patterning is preferred.

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