omni_shape_cylinder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add useful detail: 'Solid by default' and 'Each y-layer is one or two fill_area runs' reveal fill behavior and implementation. However, it does not state world-modifying side effects, permissions, or reversibility.

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, each carrying distinct information with no filler. The phrasing is very compact, though almost telegraphic, which slightly limits how much guidance it can convey.

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 world-modifying shape tool with six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits coordinate interpretation, how block and meta work, return behavior, and whether the shape is applied immediately.

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%, and the description never names center, radius, height, block, or meta. The only semantic contribution is 'vertical,' which hints that height maps to the Y axis, but this does not compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 identifies a vertical cylinder and states it is solid by default, which distinguishes it from other shape tools. The phrase 'fill_area runs' implies the tool generates fill operations, though no explicit verb like 'create' or 'fill' is present.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling shape tools such as omni_shape_sphere or omni_shape_pyramid. No exclusions, alternatives, or conditions are mentioned beyond 'solid by default.'

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