feature_sweep

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full disclosure burden and does so thoroughly: it names specific error outcomes (twist/taper + guide_rail -> INVALID_PARAMS, gaps -> FUSION_API_ERROR), states that an errored feature rolls back the timeline while a warning is kept and reported in `health`, and spells out side effects on bodies. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context annotations would otherwise 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 purpose is front-loaded, then organized into Units/Refs, Rules, Returns and Examples blocks, which suits a 14-parameter feature. Every sentence is substantive, though the Returns block is dense and borders on verbose given no output schema exists to defer to.

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 14 parameters, no annotations and no output schema, the description closes every gap: it documents the return shape (feature, health, created/modified/removed bodies, component), enumerates failure modes, and gives three worked examples. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond it: units apply only to {sketch, point} profile specs, angles accept a Fusion expression string, path_extent is a plain share of path length, and guide_rail excludes twist/taper. A few parameters (flip, orientation, participant_bodies) are only clarified by the schema, holding it at 4 rather than 5.

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 opening line states a specific verb+resource: 'Sweep sketch profiles or planar faces along a path', immediately followed by concrete uses ('pipes, handles, springs (with twist), rails, swept cuts'). An agent can distinguish this from extrude, revolve and loft siblings without opening the 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?

It tells the agent exactly where refs come from ('profiles from sketch_draw / sketch_profiles; path and guide rail from sketch_draw ... or BRep edges from inspect_query'), prohibits mixing sketch curves and edges in one path, and explains path_chain and is_solid=false constraints. It lacks an explicit 'use feature_loft/feature_extrude instead when...' comparison to siblings, which keeps it just below a 5.

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