Create box

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the document is locked exclusively during the operation and that length/width/height must be positive, but it does not cover permissions, error behavior, or whether changes are reversible.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by the concurrency constraint and parameter constraints. There is no repetition or filler.

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 output schema means return values need not be explained, and the nested schema covers individual parameter meanings. The description adds the important locking behavior and numeric constraints; it could be stronger on error cases or permissions, but is largely complete for this local mutation tool.

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 nested schema already documents each property with descriptions and defaults, though the top-level 'params' object lacks a schema description. The tool description adds meaningful constraints — positivity and millimetres — for length, width, and height, but says nothing about document_id, object_name, or workspace.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Add a Part::Box to an existing document.' The resource name 'Part::Box' clearly differentiates it from sibling tools such as create_cylinder and create_document.

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 'existing document' implies a prerequisite, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus create_cylinder or create_document, nor any exclusions or alternative-selection advice.

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