sheet_flange

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses that the input handle is consumed and hidden, lists the exact return object fields, explains that k_factor affects only the flat pattern (deferring to sheet_unfold), and states edge rejection rules. This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure for a CAD feature 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 front-loaded with the core action, then organized as a parameter reference, and ends with consumption and return details. Every sentence adds distinct value, and despite its length it remains tightly focused 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?

Given 12 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is quite complete: it explains the operation, most parameters, the consumed handle, and the return shape. It still lacks explicit sibling-tool usage guidance and prerequisites (e.g., transaction state), so it is not exhaustive.

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 and largely does. It gives meanings and constraints for edge, angle_deg, inner_radius_mm, direction, length_from, width_mm/offset_mm, and k_factor. A few parameters (handle, name, feature_name, length_mm itself) are only lightly or indirectly covered, so it is not fully complete.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Bend a flange off a free edge of a sheet part.' It is clear what the tool does and the domain (sheet metal). However, it does not explicitly distinguish the tool from sibling sheet-metal features like sheet_hem or sheet_tab, so it falls short of a 5.

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 an implied usage condition: the edge must be a straight free edge of a flat region, and arcs are rejected. This gives useful context for when the tool can be applied. But there is no explicit guidance on when to choose sheet_flange over alternatives such as sheet_hem or sheet_tab, nor any when-not-to-use statement beyond edge validity.

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