plasticity_create_cylinder

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates model state. The description adds useful context that dimensions are millimeters and the axis is world-space, but says nothing about the required revision argument or the effect of adding a body. With annotations carrying the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the units/frame qualifiers. Nothing is wasted or buried.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin. The required revision parameter and the name/intent fields are unexplained, and there is no indication of the return value or how the new body is identified afterward.

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 7 parameters. "Dimensions are millimeters" gives units for centerMm/radiusMm/heightMm and "world-space axis" frames the axis parameter, which is genuine added meaning, but name, intent, and especially the required revision parameter remain entirely undocumented. It does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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+resource ("Create an exact CAD cylinder") and even narrows the geometry (world-space axis, millimeters), which clearly separates it from siblings like create_box, create_cone, create_sphere, and create_torus. It stops short of naming any alternative, so it earns a solid 4 rather than a 5.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-selection guidance. It never says when a cylinder primitive is preferable to building one via extrude/revolve, nor mentions prerequisites. Like the calibration update_drive example, this is purpose-only with no usage framing.

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