pattern_circular

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses atomicity ('nothing changed') for INVALID_PARAMS, rollback for FUSION_API_ERROR, expected return fields including created/modified/removed bodies and occurrences, and the one-kind constraint.

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 definition is front-loaded with the core operation, then support details, error behavior, returns, and a compact example. Some ref-source text duplicates the schema, but every section remains useful and the example is worth the space.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers entity sourcing, axis sourcing, angle semantics, failure modes, atomicity, return shape, and an example. Nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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 meaning beyond the schema: instances spread evenly over total_angle with 360 meaning a full circle, all entities must be of one kind, and quantity below 1 is invalid. The compute parameter is left to the schema, which is acceptable given full coverage.

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 sentence states a specific verb and resource — copy features, bodies, faces or occurrences around an axis — and the circular/axis framing distinguishes it from linear or path patterns. An agent can identify the operation 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?

The description gives clear context for use: pattern around an axis, entity kinds supported, and valid ref sources. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as pattern_rectangular or explain when not to use this tool, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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