Sweep a profile along a path

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

Annotations provide only a title, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It adds a key prerequisite: the profile must have closed regions and the path is the edges of another sketch. It does not disclose mutation behavior, validation behavior, or failure modes, but it is not misleading and gives useful operational context.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the essential operation clearly and compactly.

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 an 8-parameter CAD feature tool with no output schema, the description provides the core mechanics but lacks operational context such as how the sweep interacts with existing bodies beyond the op enum, what the result looks like, and when the operation is likely to fail. The schema covers all parameters, making it minimally viable.

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 documents all 8 parameters in sufficient detail. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Sweep'), a specific resource ('closed regions of one sketch'), and the mechanism ('along the edges of another'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling modeling operations like extrusion or revolution.

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 implies the intended use case: sweeping a sketch profile along a path defined by another sketch's edges. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as onshape_extrude or onshape_revolve, nor does it state when sweep should be preferred over them.

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