Sweep

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

The annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only and not destructive, and the description adds that this is an additive pipe operation with a same-body constraint. It does not disclose side effects on the original sketches, document state, or failure behavior, which would be useful for a feature-creation call.

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 first sentence is a compact definition and every following line is terse and scannable. There is no filler, and the most important invocation details are front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the core invocation: two required handles plus optional mode and transition values, and it gives a key spatial constraint. It does not explain the meaning of each mode/transition option, what the resulting feature handle or return value is, or likely failure conditions, leaving some gaps for agents choosing advanced options.

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 compensates well: it defines profile and spine handles, gives exact allowed values for mode and transition, and notes the same-body requirement. The optional name parameter is omitted from the description, but the schema supplies its default value.

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 clearly states the operation: 'Sweep a profile sketch along a spine sketch (additive pipe)', giving a specific verb, the two key resources, and the additive nature of the feature. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like loft or pad, but the profile+spine pair makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 one relevant prerequisite: the spine must be 'in the same body', and it lists the selectable mode and transition values. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools such as loft or revolve, and it does not explain when one mode should be preferred over another.

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