Sweep

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it is a mutation that is not idempotent but not destructive. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that—it does not explain operation modes (new_body/join/cut/intersect), what happens to existing geometry, or any side effects.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence, but for a tool with five parameters and complex behavioral options, it is severely under-specified rather than appropriately concise. The brevity leaves essential information out.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, partial schema descriptions, and minimal annotations, the description is far from complete. It omits how to choose an operation, how profile_index relates to the sketch, and what the tool returns, all of which are needed for correct invocation.

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 60%: three parameters have descriptions, but operation and profile_index have none. The description mentions 'sketch profile' and 'path' but adds no meaning beyond the parameter names already in the schema, failing to compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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 'sweep' and the resources 'sketch profile' and 'path (sketch curve)', making the core operation clear. However, it does not differentiate from similar modeling siblings like loft, extrude, or revolve, which an agent might confuse.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It simply states the operation without indicating when sweeping is preferable to extrude, revolve, or loft.

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