add_swept_profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explains coordinate systems, path start constraint, bend rounding, volume calculation, and that it returns mass properties. It also implies the operation adds to the current part (via 'Use new_part first'). Missing are potential side effects on existing geometry or error conditions, but the detail provided is substantial for a CAD tool.

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 concise yet information-dense, with each sentence delivering essential value. It opens with the core purpose, then systematically details parameters and behavior with examples. No filler or redundancy; the structure is logical and front-loaded.

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 complex swept-profile tool, the description covers the critical elements: coordinate systems, path start requirement, bend handling, volume formula, return value, and prerequisite. It does not mention whether the path must be closed or open, or discuss non-self-intersecting profiles, but these may be secondary. The mention of 'Returns mass properties' compensates for the lack of an output schema. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to call the tool correctly in most cases.

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 0%, so the description must explain all parameters. It does so comprehensively: profile_mm is described with its plane, axes orientation, and centering; path_mm is described with plane, start heading, and perpendicularity; bend_radius_mm is explained as rounding path corners. Name is trivial and self-explanatory. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 sweeps a closed profile along a 2D path, specifying the exact geometry and coordinate conventions. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_extruded_profile (straight extrusion) and add_swept_pipe (round pipe) by explicitly targeting non-round extrusions along a path, leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.

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 clear usage context by stating when to use it ('For non-round extrusions along a path') and a prerequisite ('Use new_part first'). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when NOT to use it, but the 'non-round' qualifier and the detailed path/profile constraints effectively guide selection among siblings. The start-origin requirement is an important usage constraint.

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