sw_curve_pattern

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds little behavioral context beyond "copies" — it does not state that it creates a new feature in the document, requires a curve sketch or edge, or how the original features are treated.

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 zero wasted words, and the parenthetical examples earn their place by clarifying the operation. There are no structural issues or 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?

For an 8-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits how to specify the curve, what the required features and count parameters mean, and what happens to the document when the pattern is created.

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%, with most parameters such as doc, name, spacing, curve_sketch, align_to_curve, and curve_edge_point documented in the schema. The description adds the curve-pattern concept but does not explain the required features or count parameters, so it adds only marginal meaning beyond 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?

The description names a specific verb ("Copies") and resource/scope ("along a curve"), with concrete examples like rivets along an edge and vents along an arc. It distinguishes the operation from linear or circular patterns implicitly through "curve," but does not explicitly contrast 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?

The examples imply appropriate use cases for a curve-driven pattern, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over sw_linear_pattern, sw_circular_pattern, or sw_sketch_pattern. Alternatives and exclusions are left to inference.

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