sheet_metal_base_flange

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden well: it discloses that the tool uses a preview Fusion API, gives the exact failure mode and reason, and states that nothing changes on failure. It also documents the return structure. It does not cover every mutation-related concern, such as required document state or permissions, so it falls short of a 5.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then proceeds through workflow, caveat, and return shape. The information is useful and well organized, though it is dense and could have been slightly tighter.

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 sheet metal creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow, failure mode, alternatives, and return value shape. It is nearly complete, though it could say more about required document/component state and the side effects on existing bodies.

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%, so the schema already explains all five parameters, including the profile variants and rule handling. The description adds useful context that thickness comes from the active rule and that rule creation is part of the workflow, but it does not go much beyond the schema's parameter documentation.

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 names a specific operation, resource, and key dependency: a base flange creates a flat sheet metal body from closed profiles, with thickness driven by the active rule. It also distinguishes this from edge and contour flanges by stating that sketch-line bends are unavailable and must be modeled with those other flanges.

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 gives an explicit recommended order: create/select a rule, then base or contour flange, then edge flange, flat pattern, and export. It also names an alternative path for bends (edge or contour flanges) and tells the agent to check sheet_metal_capabilities first when the preview API may be unavailable.

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