sw_sweep

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which says this mutates but does not destroy. The description adds nothing beyond the name: it doesn't say that a solid feature is added to the feature tree, what happens with cut=true versus a boss, or what failure conditions exist (non-intersecting profile, open path). For a 9-parameter modeling mutation, that is a significant behavioral gap.

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 sentence fragment with no filler; the operative verb and scope come first and the examples are compact. It is efficient, though the terseness leaves no room for any guidance, which the other dimensions already penalize.

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 nine parameters, only hint-level annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain what the call produces (a named feature, tied to doc, with optional name) and the profile-versus-circle_diameter trade-off. The rich schema partly compensates for parameter knowledge, but the result and failure semantics an agent needs before invoking a modeling operation are absent.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema, including the interplay of profile vs. circle_diameter, wall_thickness, and cut. The description contributes no additional parameter semantics, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Sweep along a path') and grounds it with concrete example geometry (tubes, pipes, frame rails, wiring, handles, springs). An agent can distinguish this from sw_extrude or sw_revolve, though it never explicitly contrasts with the closest siblings sw_loft and sw_helix.

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 example list implies when the tool applies (constant cross-section geometry following a curve), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-to-use-loft-or-helix guidance and no stated prerequisites such as 'the profile sketch must cross the path start'. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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