solidworks_pattern

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description is not contradicting them. It adds useful context about unspecified fields falling back to defaults and unit conventions (SI unless a `unit` field exists). However, it does not disclose that the tool modifies the model, requires an open document, or any other behavioral side effects. The description adds limited behavioral value beyond annotations.

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?

The description is a single concise paragraph that front-loads the key dispatch mechanism and lists operations. It avoids unnecessary detail and stays focused. It is well-structured for the information it conveys, though it could be slightly more organized with bullet points, but it is not overly verbose.

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 complex tool with seven distinct operations, each with its own field set. The description only mentions the dispatch mechanism and unit defaults, omitting prerequisites (e.g., active document), expected outcomes, or any indication of the return value (though an output schema exists, it is not shown). The description is too sparse to fully guide an agent on how to correctly invoke this tool across all operations.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides general rules: each operation has its own typed field set, unspecified fields use defaults, and units follow documented conventions unless a `unit` field is present. This is helpful but does not explain the meaning of any specific parameter (e.g., seed_feature_names, boundary_sketch_name). The description gives high-level guidance but insufficient per-parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the tool dispatches on payload.operation to handlers for specific pattern types (circular, curve_driven, fill, linear, mirror, sketch_driven, table_driven). This identifies the tool's purpose as a pattern-creation dispatcher. However, it does not explicitly state that it creates or modifies patterns, nor does it differentiate from the sibling tool solidworks_array, leaving some ambiguity.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention solidworks_array or any other sibling, nor does it state conditions for use (e.g., requires an active document). The only usage hint is the dispatch mechanism itself, which is inherent to the schema. No exclusions or alternative routing are mentioned.

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