Create CAM Setup

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context about unit conventions (cm and degrees unless stated otherwise) and clarifies what the setup defines, but does not disclose what happens on repeated calls, whether existing setups are modified, or any permission requirements.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by unit conventions. The middle sentence about stock, coordinate system, and operation type is slightly redundant with the purpose but still adds useful detail without bloat.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and unit semantics but leaves gaps in workflow context, return values, and behavior relative to sibling CAM tools. It is adequate but not fully complete for an agent navigating CAM 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 coverage is 71%, and the description adds a global unit convention that applies across parameters, which is valuable beyond the schema's per-parameter hints. However, it does not explain the stock_mode options or add meaning to the enum parameters beyond restating the operation_type choices.

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 ('Create') and resource ('manufacturing setup for a body'), and lists what it defines (stock, coordinate system, operation type). It distinguishes this from sibling CAM tools only implicitly through the resource, not by explicitly naming alternatives like cam_create_operation.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cam_create_operation or cam_list_setups. There is no explicit when/when-not, nor any mention of prerequisites or typical workflow context.

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