Sheet Tab

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that the tool mutates the flat pattern, adds no bend to the bend report, adds no bend line to the DXF, and returns a specific dict shape matching sheet_flange. This is useful behavioral context that the annotations do not provide.

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 and front-loaded: purpose first, then mechanical relation, then parameter semantics, then side effects and return value. Every sentence adds value and none are 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 sheet-metal tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description covers the essential purpose, geometry, behavior, and return shape. It could be more complete by explicitly defining how edge and handle are specified, but an agent can infer most invocation details from the schema names and sibling tool context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning. It clearly explains length_mm, width_mm, offset_mm, and the whole-edge default, but it does not explain the required handle or edge parameters, nor the optional name/feature_name parameters. The coverage is helpful but 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource: extend a sheet part with a coplanar tab, described as a flat ear off a free edge. It also distinguishes this tool from bent sheet-metal features by explicitly saying there is no bend, no bend line, and no bend-report entry.

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 clear contexts for use — mounting lugs, weld tabs, snap-offs — and frames the tool as a zero-angle flange sharing the sheet_flange code path. It does not explicitly say 'use sheet_flange when you need a bend,' but the contrast is strongly implied.

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