add_swept_pipe

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and discloses useful traits: the round profile is auto-generated perpendicular to the path, smooth creates a spline, bend radius is conditional, and it returns mass properties via pi r^2 x path_length_mm. It stops short of covering error conditions or document-context requirements beyond 'Use new_part first'.

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 the action and resource, then explains the key parameters and return value in a few dense sentences. Every sentence adds useful instruction or behavior; no filler or repetition of the schema.

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 feature-creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, it covers the core geometry, parameter semantics, prerequisite part context, and return-value formula. Minor gaps remain around the optional name parameter and explicit failure modes, but an agent has enough to invoke it 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 largely does: path_mm is [[x, y], ...] in mm as the centreline, diameter_mm is the outer diameter, bend_radius_mm is required when the path turns, and smooth runs a spline. Only the optional name parameter is not described, which is a minor gap.

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: sweep a circular profile (pipe/tube/rod) along a 2D path on the Front plane. It is clear what solid is created and its geometric scope, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the generic sibling add_swept_profile or other sweep/profile tools.

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?

Provides prerequisite context ('Use new_part first') and conditional guidance for bend_radius_mm and smooth, which implies when the tool applies. However, it gives no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance versus siblings such as add_swept_profile or add_cylinder.

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