sw_circular_pattern

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond restating the operation: it doesn't say a new feature node is added to the tree, that it is parametric/editable, or how the axis reference must be supplied.

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?

A single tight sentence with the core operation front-loaded and examples supplying cheap extra signal. No waste.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and only partial schema coverage, the one-line description is far too thin — it leaves the features list, total_angle semantics, and axis-reference requirements entirely to the agent's 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 coverage is 50% and the description mentions no parameters at all. Key parameters like features (which features get patterned) and total_angle (partial vs full revolution, which the 'bolt circles' example only hints at) are undocumented in the description and absent 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?

Specific verb ("Repeat") plus the concept of a circular pattern around an axis, with concrete example use cases (bolt circles, blades, arms, spokes). An agent can distinguish it from sw_linear_pattern and sw_sketch_pattern by implication, though no sibling is explicitly named.

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 parenthetical examples imply usage contexts (rotational symmetry), but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over sw_linear_pattern, sw_sketch_pattern, or sw_curve_pattern, nor any prerequisites mentioned.

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