Create a 3D box solid at the origin by specifying width, height, and depth; use it to add rectangular geometry to CAD drawings.
Create a box solid at origin with width, height, and depth.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | No | ||
| y | No | ||
| z | No | ||
| unit | No | ||
| depth | Yes | ||
| layer | No | ||
| width | Yes | ||
| height | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states nothing about units defaulting, whether the box is added to the current document/layer, whether it's parametric or fixed geometry, or whether it returns an entity handle.
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?
One efficient sentence with the essential dimensions front-loaded. It's appropriately terse, though it could be slightly more informative without bloating.
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 geometry-creation tool with 8 parameters (5 undocumented in both schema and description), no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves too much implicit: coordinate placement semantics, unit behavior, layer assignment, and whether the result is added to the active document.
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 0% and there are 8 parameters. The description mentions only width/height/depth; it says nothing about x/y/z positioning offsets, the 'unit' enum values or default, or the 'layer' parameter. With required params documented in the schema only by name, the description fails to compensate for the coverage 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Create a box solid') plus the three required dimensions, which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_sphere and create_cylinder. However, it doesn't explicitly acknowledge those siblings or clarify scope beyond the primitive type.
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 on when to use this tool versus create_prism, boolean_union, or other solid-creation siblings. A user wanting a rectangular solid could reasonably be unsure whether create_box or create_prism is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.