add_thread

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the thread runs into the material, is right-handed, has validation against SolidWorks' thread profiles, and returns mass properties plus thread dimensions. It does not discuss reversibility or side effects, but it gives a solid picture of what the operation does.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose first, then parameter semantics, then usage prerequisites, then return value. There is no filler or repetition of schema titles.

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 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: coordinate convention, length direction, handedness, external/internal prerequisites, and return information. An agent has enough to call it correctly without additional inference.

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 thoroughly. It explains the size format with examples and validation, the coordinate meaning (centre of the circular edge), the internal boolean (hole vs rod), and length_mm. Only 'name' is left to the schema, and its default makes it self-explanatory.

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 specific verb ('Cut'), a specific resource ('a real, printable ISO metric thread'), and the mechanism ('SolidWorks' own Thread feature'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like add_hole and cut_profile, which are different operations on different geometry.

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 usage context: where the thread starts, how far it runs, and the prerequisites for external versus internal threads (nominal diameter for rods, pre-drilled minor diameter for holes). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the conditions are concrete and actionable.

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