geometry_add_block

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only says 'Add a block...' and 'Returns Created block info' without describing side effects, validation, prerequisites, or what happens if the geometry doesn't exist. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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 concise with a single purpose sentence followed by an organized argument list. It is front-loaded with the primary action. The list format is clear but slightly verbose (e.g., repeating 'default' multiple times).

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?

With 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide richer context about how this tool fits into the geometry workflow, what 'geometry_name' refers to, and the structure of the returned block info. The current description leaves many gaps for an AI agent to infer.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description adds value by explaining each parameter's meaning, units (meters), defaults, and field roles (e.g., 'position: Base position [x, y, z] in meters'). However, some terms like 'geometry_name' are only vaguely explained ('Geometry sequence name'). Still, it compensates significantly.

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 clearly states 'Add a block (rectangular cuboid) to the geometry.' It specifies a distinct shape (rectangular cuboid) which differentiates it from sibling tools like geometry_add_circle, geometry_add_sphere, etc. The verb 'Add' and resource 'block' are specific.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as geometry_add_rectangle or geometry_add_cylinder. The description only lists parameters without any context about prerequisites, limitations, or best practices.

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