sw_create_axis

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-read-only but non-destructive operation. The description adds the creation modes and target use cases, but does not clarify what happens if both or neither of axis/face_point are provided. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the axis modes and the main usage context efficiently.

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 schema fully documents the four optional parameters, and annotations cover the safety profile, but the description does not explain the important interaction between axis and face_point or what happens when neither is supplied. For a creation tool with no output schema and zero required parameters, that missing behavioral detail leaves a meaningful gap.

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 100%, so the schema already documents doc, axis, name, and face_point. The description adds high-level mode context by mentioning X/Y/Z versus a cylindrical face, but does not add syntax, exclusivity rules, or default behavior beyond what the schema already provides.

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 identifies the resource precisely: a reference axis created either along X/Y/Z or through a cylindrical face. It distinguishes this from related creation tools like sw_create_plane by specifying the axis-specific geometry and use cases. The only slight gap is that it does not explicitly start with a verb like 'Creates', though the tool name and noun phrase make the action clear.

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 gives clear usage context: 'for patterns, angled planes and mates'. That tells an agent when this tool is relevant, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions versus sibling tools such as sw_create_plane.

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