nx_create_diameter_dimension

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load; it does disclose the key prerequisite that edge_index is a 0-based index obtained from nx_list_edges on the given body, which is real operational context. It says nothing about whether the dimension persists in the model, permission/part-state requirements, or side effects of creating an annotation.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the differentiation, then the parameter prerequisite. Nothing is redundant and every sentence adds information.

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 return values needn't be explained, but for an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage the definition leaves too much open: what the tolerances do, where pos_x/pos_y place the dimension, and what part/view context is required.

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% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate and it only explains edge_index (and implies body_id). Placement coordinates (pos_x, pos_y), view_id, dim_name, and the tolerance pair are entirely undocumented in either place, leaving most of the surface for the agent to guess.

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 ('Create a DIAMETER dimension') plus the exact target scope ('on one edge'), and explicitly contrasts it with the linear-dimension alternative. An agent can distinguish this from nx_create_dimension or nx_create_radius_dimension on purpose alone.

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?

Gives a clear condition for use: cylindrical/circular features where a linear dimension between two edges cannot express a diameter, with a parenthetical use case (shafts). It does not address the closest sibling, nx_create_radius_dimension, nor when-not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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