add_swept_pipe

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden and does so well: it states that the profile is auto-generated perpendicular to the path, explains bend_radius_mm behavior, and discloses that the tool returns mass properties. It does not discuss invalid-path behavior or explicit side effects beyond creation, but the prerequisite and creation semantics are clear.

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 a one-sentence capability statement followed by a compact parameter block. Every sentence adds useful information and there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description covers all essential operational knowledge: purpose, construction plane, path format, profile generation, bend behavior, return value, and prerequisite. An agent has enough information to call and interpret the tool correctly.

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, and it does for the meaningful parameters: path_mm is explained as an [x, y] centreline in mm, diameter_mm as outer diameter, and bend_radius_mm as required on turns and unnecessary for straight 2-point paths. Only the self-explanatory name parameter is left to the schema and default.

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 concrete operation: 'Sweep a circular profile (pipe/tube/rod) along a 2D path on the Front plane.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the generic add_swept_profile sibling by specifying the circular cross-section, and it identifies the target resource and relevant dimensions.

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 gives clear context and a prerequisite: it is for circular-profile sweeps along a Front-plane 2D path, and 'Use new_part first' tells the agent the required setup. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as add_swept_profile for non-circular profiles, but the circular-profile wording implies when this tool is appropriate.

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