sw_helix

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known, but the description adds nothing beyond that: no note that the tool mutates the active document, no mention of what happens on invalid input or whether a partial feature can be left behind, and no confirmation of the returned result. For a feature-creating mutation, this leaves behavior essentially undisclosed.

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 front-loaded clause with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though the terseness is a symptom of under-specification rather than disciplined brevity, which is penalized in other dimensions rather than here.

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?

This is a 9-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and thin schema documentation, so the description should carry real weight, but it does not mention prerequisites (active document, sketch containing exactly one circle), the result of the call, or how the geometry options interact. An agent could not reliably call it correctly from this definition alone.

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 only 33%: doc, name, and sketch are documented, but pitch, revolutions, reverse, clockwise, start_angle, and taper_angle carry no descriptive text, only numeric constraints. The description compensates with nothing about parameter meaning, units, or direction/taper interaction, so six of nine parameters remain semantically opaque.

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 resource, the helix curve, and gives concrete applications (springs, coils, augers, threads), which makes the geometry it produces unambiguous. It never states an explicit verb, so 'creates a helix feature' must be inferred, and it does not distinguish itself from sibling sw_spring, which also covers springs.

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 use cases ('path for springs, coils, augers, threads') imply context but give no when-to-use rules, no prerequisites such as an open document with a valid sketch, and no direction toward alternatives. An agent must guess whether sw_spring is preferable for a spring rather than calling sw_helix directly.

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