Create Geometry Cylinder

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, indicating it's a write operation, but the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond 'create'. It does not disclose side effects like whether it modifies the active design, requires a design to exist, or how it interacts with existing geometry. The 'centered' and 'SI units' details are more parameter-level than behavioral.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the verb and object. No words are wasted, and it avoids redundancy with the schema.

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 description covers the core purpose and useful constraints (centering, SI units) but lacks important context such as prerequisites (e.g., an active design), expected side effects, or how the created cylinder is exposed (e.g., returned ID). For a create operation with 6 parameters, this is adequate but not complete.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description's mention of 'centered' and 'SI length units' adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema titles. However, it does not elaborate on individual parameters or clarify the coordinate system for center_x/y/z, leaving some ambiguity.

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 'Create a centered cylinder using SI length units' clearly states the specific verb (create), resource (cylinder), and unique qualifiers (centered, SI units). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like geometry_create_block and geometry_create_sphere.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it or any explicit alternative. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and purpose.

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