cylinder

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does add meaningful behavioral detail: the +axis direction convention, first-end centering, and what hollow does. However, it never says this mutates the current design, whether it overwrites existing blocks, or what happens at the far end. Substantial but incomplete disclosure for an unannotated mutation tool.

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?

Two dense sentences with the anchoring and orientation semantics front-loaded and no wasted words. Slight awkwardness in 'running length blocks along +axis', but the structure is efficient.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, but with 9 params, 7 required, 0% schema coverage, and zero annotations, the description leaves radius, block, and design unexplained and never states that this writes into the active design. Too many gaps for a geometry mutation tool with no structured support.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain all 9 params, yet it covers only x/y/z anchoring, length, axis direction, and hollow. Radius — a core, required cylinder parameter — is never mentioned, nor are block or design, leaving a critical gap on how the cylinder's width is determined (and how radius interacts with hollow).

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 makes it clear this draws a cylinder vs the sibling primitives (box, sphere, pyramid, line), stating the anchoring point (first end at x,y,z) and that it runs length blocks along +axis. The parenthetical 'y: a tower, x or z: a tunnel or arch' makes the shape's effect concrete. It lacks an explicit verb (create/draw) but the resource and behavior are unmistakable.

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?

Usage is only implied: the axis examples ('tower' vs 'tunnel/arch') hint at when each orientation fits, and 'hollow leaves a tube' hints at the tube use case. There is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-box/sphere guidance and no stated prerequisites such as an active design.

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