Create tank

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the document is locked exclusively during the operation and that dimensions must be positive, but it does not state what happens if the document is missing, already locked, or how failures are surfaced.

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 three short sentences with the action and target front-loaded, followed by the positivity constraint and the locking behavior. There is no redundant or filler text.

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 the description need not explain return values. For a mutation tool with no annotations, however, it should ideally mention permission requirements or failure behavior around the exclusive document lock; it currently only states that the lock occurs.

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 description reinforces that length, width, and height are positive millimetre values, which is useful. The nested schema already describes all six parameters, including document_id, workspace, and object_name, so the description adds only marginal meaning beyond the schema.

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: add a rectangular Part::Box (tank) to an existing document. It is clear enough to distinguish this from document creation, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling create_box or create_cylinder 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' implies the tool is for adding geometry after a document exists, rather than creating one. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this versus create_box, create_cylinder, or other creation tools.

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