fusion_thread

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

Annotations already indicate mutation (readOnlyHint false) and non-destructive. Description adds context about face type and boolean meanings but does not disclose side effects, error states, or what 'modeled=False' does beyond 'not real geometry'.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and key requirement. No fluff; every sentence adds value.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, description lacks explanation for body and thread_type, and does not mention return value, error conditions, or prerequisites beyond face selection.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, description must compensate but only explains face, internal, and modeled. Body and thread_type are left unexplained; body is required but no hints on its format or purpose.

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 'Add a thread to a cylindrical face' and specifies the face source (fusion_list_faces, non-planar). It distinguishes from siblings like fusion_hole by being thread-specific.

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?

Provides guidance on face selection and boolean parameters (internal for hole, modeled for real geometry). Implicitly tells when to use, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like fusion_hole or fusion_cylinder.

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