sw_flat_pattern

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates something but is not destructive; the description adds nothing beyond that. It does not say whether the change is a transient view state or a persisted document setting, nor what happens when the active document is not a sheet metal part — a meaningful gap for a state-changing tool.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the effect and immediately followed by the interpretation of the flag. Nothing is wasted or buried.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema toggle this is close to adequate, but it omits the sheet-metal precondition, persistence semantics, and any routing to sw_export_flat_pattern. An agent can call it, but cannot be confident about side effects or failure modes.

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 only 50%, with the flatten boolean having no schema description at all; the description supplies exactly that missing semantics by defining true=flat and false=folded. The doc parameter is already covered by the schema, so the description correctly spends its words on the undocumented one.

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 plus resource: toggles a sheet-metal part between flat and folded display, which is a distinct operation an agent can identify. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling sw_export_flat_pattern, which produces the flat pattern as an output file rather than a view state.

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 states what the flag values mean but offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. the active document must be a sheet-metal part), and no mention of the obvious alternative sw_export_flat_pattern for actually producing flat-pattern geometry.

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