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

Annotations provide no behavioral hints (all false). The description only states the action without disclosing side effects, reversibility, permissions, or return values. Similar to the update_drive example, this lacks transparency for a mutation tool.

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, concise sentence that directly communicates the tool's purpose without extraneous text. It is appropriately sized 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?

Given 9 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no meaningful annotations, the one-sentence description is insufficient. It omits behavioral details, parameter relationships, and any context about how the addition integrates with the scene.

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?

The description adds meaning by implying that a cone is created when topRadius and bottomRadius differ, which is not explicitly stated in the schema. However, with schema description coverage at 44%, it does not compensate for many undocumented parameters like outline, outlineColor, or position subfields.

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 '添加圆柱体或圆锥体' clearly states the tool adds a cylinder or cone. The verb 'add' and the resource type distinguish it from other add* sibling tools like addBox, addPolygon, etc.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context for choosing between similar shape-adding tools.

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