Create CAM Operation

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

Annotations are all false and provide no safety or side-effect context, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses only that an operation is added; it does not mention whether the operation is persisted, whether a matching setup/tool is required, or what happens if required parameters are invalid.

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 one focused sentence with no filler and conveys the core action clearly. It is somewhat sparse, but conciseness itself is appropriate.

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?

This is a complex manufacturing operation with 10 parameters, no output schema, and many CAM siblings, yet the description omits workflow context such as prerequisite setup creation, relationship to toolpath generation, and post-creation next steps. The schema covers parameters but not the operational context.

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 high (90%), so the schema does most of the work. The description adds modest value with 'Strategy determines the toolpath type,' and the schema already clarifies that tool_diameter is unsupported.

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 ('Add') and resource ('machining operation to a setup') and adds that strategy determines the toolpath type. It is clear and distinguishable from cam_create_setup and cam_generate_toolpath, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus cam_create_setup, cam_generate_toolpath, or cam_list_operations. There is no mention that a setup must already exist or that toolpath generation is a separate step.

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