sheet_metal_unfold

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the preview-API dependency, the exact failure mode (FUSION_API_ERROR reason=api_unavailable) and that nothing changes on failure, and the shape of the returned object including created/modified/removed body lists and an UnfoldFeature reference.

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?

Two tight paragraphs: the operation and its inverse first, then the failure mode, then the return shape. Every sentence adds information an agent needs, with no 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?

There is no output schema, so the description supplies the return shape itself, and it documents the prerequisite/failure path for a preview API. Nothing needed to call this two-parameter mutation correctly 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; the description adds value by pointing bend_faces at sheet_metal_list_bends as their source and framing stationary_face as the face that 'stays in place' rather than merely 'planar'. It does not explain the entity-ref format further, but the schema already does.

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 (unfold) and resource (all bends or named bend faces of a sheet metal body) plus the stationary-face anchor. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling that enumerates bends (sheet_metal_list_bends) and the one that reverses it (sheet_metal_refold).

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 concrete use case (to add cuts across a bend), names the source of optional bend faces, names the reverse operation, and adds a prerequisite: check sheet_metal_capabilities first when the preview API is missing. When/when-not/alternatives are all covered.

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