sw_generate_part

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write-safe profile is already covered; the description usefully adds that the part is created "in a new document," which is real behavioral context an agent would otherwise not have. However, it does not say whether the new document becomes the active one, whether existing work is affected, or what the tool returns — gaps that matter for a document-creating mutation.

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 with no filler, but it is an elliptical fragment missing a verb, so the core action is not front-loaded. Efficiency is high; syntactic clarity is not.

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 tool is low-complexity (2 params, one enum) and the params schema is self-documenting, so the description does not need to be long. Still, with no output schema and no statement of what the call produces or what units the parameters use, an agent must infer the post-call state.

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%: the `params` property carries a detailed per-kind key listing, while `kind` relies on its enum alone. The description adds only the notion that parameters have sensible defaults, which is useful but marginal beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 sentence conveys the gist — generates a parametric part in a new document from a few parameters — but it is phrased as a noun fragment ("A typical part in a new document from a few parameters") rather than a verb+resource statement. Neither the `kind` options (l_bracket, flange, enclosure, motor_mount) nor the distinction from sibling generators (sw_generate_wing, sw_generate_propeller, sw_generate_fuselage, sw_generate_fastener) appear in the description, so an agent cannot tell from prose alone which generator to pick.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of the alternative generators, and no stated prerequisites. The only usage-adjacent hint is the parenthetical "all have sensible defaults," which implies params can be omitted but doesn't say when to supply them.

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