sw_create_box

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the save action ('save it under the output root') but omits potential behavioral details: whether the part is opened in the active document, whether it modifies current geometry, what units are expected, or what happens to existing files with the same name. No annotation contradiction exists since there are no annotations.

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 sentence that is short and efficient, no redundant words. It front-loads the core purpose ('Create a rectangular box Part') before stating the save behavior. The 0% schema coverage requires a bit more parameter detail, but the description itself is concise and well-structured.

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 the tool has 4 parameters and no annotations, the description is thin. It doesn't explain what 'output root' means, how dimensions are interpreted, whether save_as_name is required or optional, or what the output schema contains (though output schema exists and might describe return values). Sibling tools suggest a family of parametric geometry creators, and this description does not situate the tool within that family.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the purpose of the tool (dimensions of a box) but doesn't elaborate on any parameter meaning beyond names like length_mm, width_mm, height_mm, and save_as_name. The description adds context that the dimensions define a rectangular box, which is the core semantics, but does not clarify units, valid ranges, or naming rules. Baseline 3 for useful but not compensatory.

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 ('Create') and resource ('a rectangular box Part'), and mentions saving under the output root. It distinguishes from siblings like sw_create_cylinder by the box geometry, though it doesn't name alternative tools. The purpose is clear but the primary use of the output root is slightly unclear since save_as_name can be provided.

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 provides a clear context: create a rectangular box Part and save it. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like sw_create_cylinder or sw_create_flange, but the box-specific wording implies when it's appropriate. No exclusions or alternative routing are given.

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