sw_structural_member

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it mutates non-destructively. The description adds useful geometry behavior (segments become members, mitred at corners), but omits what document type is required, whether a weldment feature folder is created, and any cut-list side effects.

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 well-formed sentence with no filler, and the key resource (frame members) is front-loaded. It may be slightly over-compressed for a seven-parameter feature-creation tool, but every word earns its place.

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?

With a rich schema but no output schema and only minimal annotations, the description is adequate to identify the operation but thin on how the feature is created (sketch must be pre-built, members derive from segments, weldment document context). It leaves meaningful behavioral gaps for a modeling mutation tool.

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 86%, so the schema already documents doc, name, size, sketch, profile, and rotation. The description only echoes 'standard profiles' and 'sketch segments', adding no format or constraint detail (e.g. valid profile names, rotation effects) beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific action and resource: creates frame members from standard profiles along sketch segments, mitred at corners, in a weldment context. This is clearly distinct from profile listing (sw_weldment_profiles) or cut list generation, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.

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 prerequisites, and no named alternatives. The parenthetical '(weldment)' hints at the context, but an agent must infer that a layout sketch and a valid profile/size pair from sw_weldment_profiles are required before calling.

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