Create cylinder

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and usefully discloses the exclusive document lock and positive-value constraints. However, it does not explain failure behavior, permissions, or side effects such as object-name collisions, so transparency is only adequate.

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 two tight sentences with the operation and key preconditions front-loaded. Every sentence contributes useful information without repetition.

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?

For a create tool with a rich input schema and an output schema, the description supplies the essential context: existing document requirement, exclusive lock, and positive radius/height. Remaining gaps around permissions and error conditions are minor but present.

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 schema already documents document_id, workspace, object_name, units, and defaults; the description adds the important positivity constraint for radius and height. It still omits behavioral meaning for workspace and object_name, so it adds some value but does not fully compensate for the remaining gaps.

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 and resource: adding a Part::Cylinder to an existing document. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as create_document, create_box, and other shape/object tools.

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 'to an existing document' establishes the key precondition and implicitly routes new-document scenarios to create_document. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives among shape-creation tools, but the resource-specific name makes the distinction clear.

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