sw_sheet_metal_base

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

Annotations only declare it is a non-destructive write; the description adds real behavioral substance — that bends are placed at every corner for open profiles and that closed profiles stay flat. It still omits what the tool returns, whether an existing sheet-metal feature is replaced, and how bend_radius/relief affect the result.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first delivers the core behavior and the profile-mode distinction, the second points to the natural next step. Nothing is wasted and the essential information is front-loaded.

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 geometry-creating tool with 8 parameters, half of them undocumented, no output schema, and no mention of preconditions, the description leaves gaps an agent would have to guess at. Safety signaling is covered by annotations, but the parameter and result picture is thin.

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 50%, so the description has to carry weight, but it only elaborates on the sketch parameter (and largely restates what the schema already says: 'Closed profile = flat tab; open profile = bent channel'). Key parameters like relief, bend_radius, reverse, and depth are given no guidance in either place.

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 the resource (sheet-metal part) and its source (a sketch), and explains the two outcome modes: closed profile produces a flat plate, open profile produces a bent part. It is easy to distinguish from sw_export_flat_pattern, which it explicitly names as the downstream step, though the sibling sw_flat_pattern (unbending an existing part) is not contrasted.

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 implied through the closed-vs-open profile distinction, which tells the agent which kind of output a given sketch yields, and a follow-up tool is named. There is no explicit statement of prerequisites (an existing sketch/document must exist) or of when to prefer sw_flat_pattern or sw_extrude instead.

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