Fold Sheet Metal

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false, so the mutation/repeat profile is known. The description usefully adds a global units caveat (cm, not mm; degrees) and the sketch prerequisite, but says nothing about whether the body is modified in place, how bend relief is chosen, or whether the operation is undoable.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the prerequisite, then the units caveat. No filler or redundancy.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with 50% schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the crucial units convention and sketch precondition but omits the meaning of line_position and allow_bend_relief and any statement of return/result, leaving gaps an agent must guess at.

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%: bend_angle's 'Degrees' and the face/line defaults are already in the schema. The description adds a genuinely useful cross-cutting note that lengths and coordinates default to cm rather than mm, but it leaves line_position's enum values and allow_bend_relief unexplained.

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 (bend) and resource (sheet metal body) with the exact mechanism (a line of the last sketch), which cleanly separates it from neighbors like extrude, revolve, and flat_pattern. An agent can identify the operation 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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite and routes to the sibling tool: 'Draw the line on the sheet face with draw_line first.' There is clear context for use, though no explicit when-not or alternative for the case of bending without a sketch line.

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