create_bendAdd bends to sheet metal bodies by specifying angle, radius, and bend line sketch. Define bend geometry precisely for CAD models.
Add a bend to a sheet metal body
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| angle | No | Bend angle (degrees) | |
| body_name | Yes | ||
| bend_radius | No | Override bend radius (cm) | |
| bend_line_sketch | No | Sketch with bend line |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation, which the description doesn't contradict. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations—it implies a geometric modification but doesn't specify effects like permanent model changes, error conditions, or typical use cases in CAD workflows.
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 a single, direct sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.
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 CAD modeling tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering basic safety, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on typical outcomes, error handling, or integration with sibling tools, leaving gaps in contextual understanding.
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 75% (3 of 4 parameters have descriptions), providing good baseline documentation. The description doesn't add meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema already covers (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships between parameters like bend_line_sketch and angle).
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 action ('Add a bend') and the target resource ('to a sheet metal body'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from similar sibling tools like 'create_flange' or 'fold/unfold' operations, which might also manipulate sheet metal 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_flange' or 'fold' operations. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing a sheet metal body and bend line sketch) or when this operation is appropriate in a design workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.