Create a vertical cylinder solid for CAD drawings by specifying radius and height, with optional center, unit, layer, and segment count.
Create a vertical cylinder solid.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cx | No | ||
| cy | No | ||
| cz | No | ||
| unit | No | ||
| layer | No | ||
| height | Yes | ||
| radius | Yes | ||
| segments | No |
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 does not say whether the solid is added to modelspace, how units/layer defaults are resolved, what the origin/cx-cy-cz offsets are, whether the operation is undoable, or what is returned.
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?
A single short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity is a symptom of missing content rather than tight writing.
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 an 8-parameter solid-creation tool with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description omits almost everything an agent needs: parameter meanings, units, placement semantics, and return behavior.
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 the description names none of the 8 parameters. Required radius/height, centroid offsets cx/cy/cz, unit enum, layer, and segments must all be inferred from bare schema keys, so 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?
The description states a specific verb plus resource ('Create a vertical cylinder solid'), so an agent knows exactly what primitive is produced and that its axis is vertical. It is clear on its own but does not distinguish itself from siblings like create_cone or create_prism beyond the resource name.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this over alternatives such as create_cone/create_prism/create_sphere, nor about prerequisites like an active layer or units. The 'vertical' qualifier is the only selection hint.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.