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

Annotations are all false and provide no positive behavioral context. The description does not mention side effects, idempotency, whether the box replaces existing entities, or any return value, leaving the agent without behavioral expectations.

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?

The description is a single, focused sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without extraneous words. It is highly concise and front-loaded.

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?

The tool has 8 parameters, nested required objects, and no output schema. The one-sentence description omits essential invocation details like position semantics, orientation, and outline options, leaving the description inadequate for correct use.

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 only 13% schema description coverage, the description should clarify parameter meaning. It only highlights dimensions and material, ignoring position (required), orientation, outline, and ID fields, so it barely compensates for the schema gap.

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 '添加带尺寸和材质的3D盒体' clearly states a specific action (add) and resource (3D box) with relevant attributes (dimensions, material). It differentiates from sibling add* tools by naming the shape.

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 guidance on when to use addBox versus alternatives like addCylinder or addPolygon. There is no mention of prerequisites, selection criteria, or special scenarios.

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