nx_circular_pattern

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the original body is kept, that new instances are independent bodies (NOT united), and that count includes the original. It also clarifies that angle is total sweep, not per-instance rotation. This is strong behavioral disclosure for a patterning operation, though it does not mention whether the operation is reversible or if it modifies the original body in place.

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 with the core action, then explains the two critical parameters and the behavioral caveat about independent bodies. Every sentence earns its place, and the note about nx_unite is a useful pointer without being verbose.

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?

The description covers the essential semantics for a patterning tool: what it does, how count and angle work, and the independence of resulting bodies. It does not explain the 'reverse' parameter or the output schema, but the output schema exists and the reverse parameter is a simple boolean with a default. The description is complete enough for an agent to invoke 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the meaning of count (total instances including original) and angle (total sweep in degrees), which are not obvious from the schema alone. It also clarifies the center parameter as the axis point. However, it does not explain the 'reverse' parameter or the 'body_id' parameter, though those are relatively self-explanatory from the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Pattern'), a resource ('a body'), and the manner ('circularly about an axis through center'). It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like nx_linear_pattern and nx_mirror by specifying circular patterning about an axis. The description also clarifies the semantics of count and angle, which are essential for correct use.

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 explains the key parameters and their semantics, and explicitly notes that the original body is kept and instances are independent bodies, with a pointer to nx_unite if merging is required. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like nx_linear_pattern or nx_mirror, but the circular pattern behavior is clear enough to infer the appropriate context.

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