create_vent_pattern

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the plate has through-slots and a regular array, but does not explain side effects like creating geometry in the active document, whether it modifies existing objects, units, orientation, or any required document state. This is insufficient for a creation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and object clearly, making it easy to parse.

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 an 8-parameter CAD tool with no annotations and no usage guidance, this one-line description leaves major invocation questions unresolved: coordinate system, units, slot orientation, how depth relates to plate geometry, and whether an open document is required. The output schema does not cover these input semantics.

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% and the description name no parameters beyond implying 'regular array' and 'through-slots'. The 8 parameters (depth, width, height, spacing, slot_width, slot_length, doc_name) receive no added context about meaning, units, relationships, or defaults, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('vent plate with a regular array of through-slots'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling shape-creation tools like create_box or create_cylinder. The mention of through-slots adds precision about the geometry being produced.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_fan_mount, create_screw_boss, or boolean_cut. The description states only what the tool does, not the conditions or context in which it should be selected.

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