plasticity_create_cone

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by disclosing that the profile remains editable and that the whole thing is a single history step, but it says nothing about the destructiveHint=true implication, permission/revision prerequisites, or what happens to overlapping geometry.

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 sentences, no filler, and the front-loaded opening carries the core purpose before the parameter and alternative guidance. Every sentence contributes actionable 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?

For a 9-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the geometric parameters and the key routing decision well. It is slightly short of complete because the utility parameters (name, intent, revision) are undocumented in both description and schema, leaving an agent guessing about the required revision token.

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 carries the burden and does partially compensate: it explains that bottom center, unequal bottom/top radii, height, axis and nonparallel radial direction are all explicit parameters, and gives semantics for topRadiusMm (0 = pointed cone) plus implied mm units. It does not address name, intent, or revision, so it is not fully complete.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Create an exact cone or conical frustum Solid') and adds the distinguishing scope that it preserves an editable meridional polyline profile in one history step. It also names the sibling it is not (plasticity_create_cylinder) under a stated condition, so an agent can separate it from neighbors without opening schemas.

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?

It gives explicit routing rules: use topRadiusMm=0 for a pointed cone, and use plasticity_create_cylinder instead when the two radii are equal. Both the when-to-use and the when-to-use-something-else cases are stated, leaving nothing to inference.

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