sw_rib

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-destructive write. The description adds the useful constraint that the input must be an open sketch line between walls, but it says nothing about side effects such as whether the sketch is consumed, what happens on failure, or that a feature is added to the tree.

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 and the key geometric condition placed up front. It is efficient but borders on under-specification for an 8-parameter feature-creation tool.

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 mutation tool with 8 parameters, no output schema and only partial schema descriptions, the description covers the core concept but omits failure modes, prerequisites (existing sketch/active document handling) and post-call state. It is adequate but leaves real gaps an agent might need to know.

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 75%, so most parameters are documented in the schema itself; the description only reinforces the 'sketch' parameter by specifying open sketch lines between walls. Thickness, draft_angle and the boolean options get no additional semantics from the description, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (stiffening rib) and its geometric construction (from an open sketch line inside a pocket or along a wall), which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like sw_extrude or sw_fillet. It lacks an explicit verb ('create') and does not call out how it differs from a plain extrude, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'inside a pocket or along a wall' communicates the geometric precondition for calling it. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives such as sw_extrude when a rib is not the right feature.

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