Sheet Flange

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only (readOnlyHint: false), which is consistent with bending. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: that the input handle is consumed (it becomes part of the result), and that k_factor affects only the flat pattern, not the folded solid. It also discloses the return payload. This goes beyond the annotation flags and gives the agent a concrete understanding of side effects.

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 extensive but well-structured, leading with the purpose and then systematically covering each parameter. While it is not terse, every sentence earns its place given the 12-parameter complexity. It is front-loaded with the core operation and progressively details nuances, making it reasonably concise for the information conveyed.

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?

Given the high parameter count and absence of an output schema, the description explains the return object completely. It also covers edge prerequisites, angle constraints, and the material-thickness default. It omits error scenarios or edge-case warnings beyond arc rejection, but the information is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly. A perfect score would require explicit error handling or preconditions, but this is well above the minimum viable.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage across 12 parameters, so the burden falls entirely on the tool description. The description explains every parameter with concrete semantics: edge (straight free edge, rejected arcs), angle_deg (deviation from flat), inner_radius_mm (defaults to material thickness), direction (up/down), length_from ('outer' vs 'inner' vs 'tangent' with drawing interpretation), width/offset (edge restriction), and k_factor (only affects flat pattern). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of 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 'Bend a flange off a free edge of a sheet part,' which clearly states the operation, resource, and scope. It explicitly mentions the requirement for a straight free edge and rejects arcs, distinguishing it from related operations like sheet_tab or sheet_hem without needing to name them.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: on straight free edges of flat regions, and explicitly notes that arcs cannot carry a bend line. It also mentions that k_factor defers to sheet_unfold, implying a separation of concerns. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state 'use this instead of X,' so it falls short of an explicit exclusion.

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