Circular pattern

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

Annotations contain only the title, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that this tool creates a feature (mutates the document), any permission requirements, or postconditions. For a feature-creation operation, this is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the action, but it is under-specified for a tool with 12 parameters. It is not verbose, yet it lacks any structural breakdown or additional context that would justify its brevity.

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 complex tool with 12 parameters, no output schema, and no behavioral annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not explain how parameters relate (e.g., axis query syntax), prerequisites, or typical usage scenarios. The schema provides parameter details but the description fails to tie them together.

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 100%, with each of the 12 parameters having a description. The tool description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'Repeat geometry around an axis' clearly identifies the verb (repeat), the resource (geometry), and the distinguishing axis concept. This differentiates it from siblings like onshape_linear_pattern (linear translation) and onshape_mirror (reflection). The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as onshape_linear_pattern or onshape_mirror. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate use cases from the name and schema.

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