plasticity_create_box

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that: it does not mention the required revision/concurrency semantics, whether creation is undoable, or what the operation returns. 'Exact CAD' hints at exact-vs-mesh geometry but is not developed.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler; the unit clarification is a good second beat. It is efficient, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined completeness.

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?

A 5-parameter, 3-required creation tool with no output schema and no annotation-substitute explanation is not adequately described. The required revision parameter, the optional name/intent metadata, and the effect of the call (new body, selection state) are all absent.

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 5 parameters, so the description must compensate, and it only clarifies that coordinates and size are in millimeters (covering originMm and sizeMm). The name, intent, and required revision parameters carry no explanation anywhere, leaving the agent to guess at revision's role in a create operation.

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 an ... exact CAD box') and distinguishes it as axis-aligned and exact CAD geometry. However, with many sibling primitives (create_cylinder, create_cone, create_torus, create_sphere, create_rectangle), it does not explicitly differentiate from them, so it lands at a clear-but-underspecified 4.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the dozens of sibling primitive-creation tools. The agent must infer when a box is the right choice versus a rectangle, cylinder, or extrude.

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