polar_pattern

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It clearly states the operation creates a new PolarPattern feature, explains the axis_sketch constraint in detail, and imposes a minimum occurrences threshold (>=2). While it doesn't discuss failure modes or side effects on existing geometry, the description adequately conveys the tool's behavior for this CAD operation.

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 well-structured: a clear one-sentence purpose, a focused usage caveat, and a compact Args block. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 tool has 8 parameters, several with non-obvious constraints (e.g., axis_sketch must own the datum). The description covers these, provides usage examples, and references the sibling linear_pattern for extra context. The existence of an output schema (not shown) covers return values. Minor gap: no mention of prerequisites like the body needing to be active, but overall the description is robust.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates fully by documenting every parameter with meaningful explanations, including the valid enum values for axis, the interpretation of angle as total angular span, and occurrences as total copies including the original. This far exceeds the schema's bare field names.

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 opens with a specific verb 'Repeat features radially' and identifies the exact resource (PartDesign::PolarPattern). It also differentiates from sibling linear_pattern by name and states 'This is the tool for bolt circles and gear-tooth rings,' making its purpose unmistakable.

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?

It explicitly references linear_pattern for the rationale behind the axis_sketch requirement, and states the tool is for bolt circles and gear-tooth rings, giving clear when-to-use context. It also warns about the Profile link limitation, providing both usage and exclusions.

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