geometry_add_cylinder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It states 'Add' (creation) and lists defaults, but does not disclose prerequisites (e.g., existing geometry), side effects, permissions, or error handling. The description is minimally transparent.

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?

Very concise: a one-line purpose followed by a bullet-point Args list and a Returns line. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. The structure is clean and easy to scan.

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?

Despite no output schema or annotations, the description covers all 7 parameters with defaults and context. It lacks details on preconditions (e.g., geometry must exist, model must be current) and the exact return structure, but is adequate for a straightforward addition 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 description adds meaningful context beyond the input schema: it specifies units (meters for position, radius, height) and notes auto-generation for feature_name. Although the schema provides types and defaults, the description clarifies physical meaning and behavior like auto-naming.

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 cylinder to the geometry.' The verb 'add' and resource 'cylinder' are specific, and the tool name includes 'geometry_add_cylinder', which distinguishes it from siblings like geometry_add_block or geometry_add_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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., adding a block or sphere). Usage context is implied by the tool name and description, but no exclusion or when-not-to-use information is provided.

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