sw_create_from_spec_json

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It only states that a model is created and lists supported types; it does not mention effects on the active document, validation behavior, failure modes, or whether the JSON spec fully replaces the direct-creation tools. This is minimal behavioral coverage.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action before the supported-types list. It wastes no words, though it could use the available space for more useful guidance without becoming verbose.

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?

The existence of an output schema helps but does not compensate for the missing input-spec details for five distinct model types. The tool is more complex than a single-sentence description suggests, and an agent would likely need to fall back to trial or external knowledge.

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 explain the single spec_json parameter. It adds that the value is a structured JSON spec and enumerates supported types, but it gives no JSON schema, examples, or required fields, leaving an agent unable to construct a valid spec for any supported type.

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 clear action ('Create a model') and resource ('from a structured JSON spec'), and the supported-types list identifies the model kinds it handles. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the dedicated sw_create_* siblings, so it stops short of a full 5.

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 phrase 'from a structured JSON spec' implies the intended use case, and the supported types list tells the agent which model kinds are valid. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over sw_create_box, sw_create_cylinder, or the other dedicated creation tools.

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