sheet_metal_convert

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: preview-API dependency with the exact failure code and a no-change guarantee, error mapping (INVALID_PARAMS for already-sheet-metal, foreign face, non-planar face), and rollback semantics on FUSION_API_ERROR including restoring the previous rule. It even notes the returned body ref may differ from the input, which is a non-obvious behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose, then prerequisites, errors, and returns in a scannable order; each section earns its place. The return-shape line is slightly verbose for a tool with a single boolean outcome, but it is not filler.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers every gap an agent needs: precondition, prerequisite capability check, failure modes with recovery semantics, and the shape of the return value. Nothing material 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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameter meanings (body, base_face, rule, rule_source) are already documented, and the description adds only the constraint that body thickness should match the rule thickness. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting for all four parameters.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Convert a solid plate body to sheet metal from a planar base face') and adds a scoping hint ('Use it for a plate built with feature_extrude') that separates it from sheet_metal_base_flange, which builds a flange from scratch. An agent can select it without inspecting 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?

Gives a clear precondition for use (existing plate from feature_extrude, thickness matching the rule thickness) and an explicit prerequisite step ('check sheet_metal_capabilities first' when the preview API is missing). It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative tool to use when the body is not an extruded plate.

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