add_circular_pattern

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the axis is determined by the cylindrical face nearest to (center_x_mm, center_y_mm), and `feature_name` defaults to the last feature. However, it doesn't mention whether the operation is destructive, requires a rebuild, or what happens if no cylindrical face is found. These are gaps, but the disclosed axis-selection behavior is valuable.

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 compact and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core behavior, the second explains the axis selection heuristic, and the third gives a practical example. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential semantics and provides a usage example. It doesn't specify error cases (e.g., no cylindrical face found) or whether the pattern is associative/parametric, but the core information needed to invoke the tool correctly is present.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the meaning of `count` (repeat count around 360°), `center_x_mm`/`center_y_mm` (used to find the nearest cylindrical face), and `feature_name` (defaults to last feature). This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema, which only provides types and titles.

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 clearly states the tool's function: repeating a feature `count` times around 360° about an axis. It specifies the resource (feature), the operation (repeat/pattern), and the key parameters (count, center coordinates). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling `add_linear_pattern` by explicitly describing a circular pattern around an axis.

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 provides a concrete usage example: 'Bolt circle: drill a centre hole + one bolt hole, then pattern the bolt hole.' This implies when to use the tool and how to set it up. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like `add_linear_pattern`, but the circular-vs-linear distinction is clear from the name and description.

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