Flat Pattern

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the prerequisite state needed to call it, but says nothing about what feature is created, whether an existing flat pattern is replaced, or whether a flat pattern already existing causes an error.

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 sentence with the action front-loaded and the prerequisite in a parenthetical. Every word earns its place with no filler.

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 2-parameter, no-output-schema mutation, the description covers the essential prerequisite but omits the result semantics (what flat pattern artifact is produced, and whether it can be exported afterward via export_flat_pattern_dxf). Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 50%: face_index is documented in the schema (stationary face, default largest planar face) while body_name is undocumented. The description partially compensates by specifying the body must be a sheet metal body, but adds nothing about face_index or how face selection interacts with the flat pattern orientation.

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 verb (Create) and resource (flat pattern of a sheet metal body), which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like fold_sheet_metal and export_flat_pattern_dxf. An agent can tell what it produces without opening the schema.

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 parenthetical 'run convert_to_sheet_metal first' is an explicit prerequisite and implicitly routes the agent to that sibling. It doesn't state when not to use it or what happens if the body isn't already sheet metal, so it falls short of a full 5.

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