sheet_tab

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers well: it discloses downstream effects (adds no bend to the bend report, no bend line to the DXF, but grows the flat pattern) and the return contract (same dict as sheet_flange with angle_deg 0, inner_radius_mm 0). It does not state whether the operation is reversible or what permissions/state it requires, but the disclosure of side effects is meaningful.

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 core concept is front-loaded in the first clause, and the supporting sentences on mechanics and return shape are informative. It is slightly dense but every sentence adds a distinct fact about behavior or output.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description does the heavy lifting, describing side effects, the return dict, and key geometry parameters. It is close to complete for a feature-creation tool, with only the identity parameters (handle, edge) and mutation/reversibility semantics left unaddressed.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the geometry inputs: length_mm, width_mm, and offset_mm are given clear semantics plus a default ('the whole edge'). The remaining parameters (handle, edge, name, feature_name) receive no explanation, so meaningful value is added but coverage is incomplete.

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 (Extend) and resource (sheet part) with a precise concept: a coplanar tab, defined as a zero-angle flange with no bend. It explicitly names the sibling it shares a code path with (sheet_flange) and characterizes the distinction, so an agent can separate it from sheet_flange and sheet_hem without opening a schema.

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?

Gives concrete usage examples (mounting lug, weld tab, snap-off) and explains the relationship to sheet_flange as a zero-angle flange sharing the same code path, which implies when each is appropriate. However, it never explicitly states a conditional rule like 'use sheet_tab when no bend is wanted, use sheet_flange otherwise', leaving the alternative choice to inference.

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