Create a sphere solid in CAD by specifying radius, optional center coordinates, units, layer, and segments for technical drawings.
Create a sphere solid.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cx | No | ||
| cy | No | ||
| cz | No | ||
| unit | No | ||
| layer | No | ||
| 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 of behavioral disclosure, and it offers almost none. It does not state whether the operation is a solid boolean, what coordinate system or layer defaults apply, whether it modifies the active document, or whether it is undoable.
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 single sentence is tight and front-loaded with the verb, so it wastes no words. It is concise only because it is under-specified, not because it communicates efficiently.
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?
With 7 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin for the tool's complexity. An agent has no basis for choosing units, placement, or segment counts without guessing.
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% across 7 parameters, and the description adds no meaning for any of them. Critical semantics such as the meaning of cx/cy/cz (center), the default unit, the effect of layer, and the tessellation role of segments are undocumented anywhere.
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 names a specific verb and resource ('Create a sphere solid'), which is enough to separate it from create_box, create_cylinder, and create_torus. However, 'solid' is the only added information beyond the tool name, so it sits at the minimum-viable level for a CAD primitive tool.
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 on when to use this versus the other primitive-creation siblings, nor any mention of prerequisites such as an active document, project, or layer context. An agent must infer all usage context from the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.