Shape add box

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

Annotations already declare the write profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false, closed world). The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the origin is the bottom-face center, the axis convention is z-up, and units are metres — all of which affect where the geometry lands. It does not explain how name/color/surf_id affect the result, so not a 5.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the conventions an agent needs before calling. No filler.

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 an 8-param creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the geometric conventions that most affect correctness. It leaves defaults (color, name) and the surf_id-on-export behavior unaddressed, but annotations carry the mutability profile so nothing critical is missing.

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 coverage is 63%, and the two structurally undocumented params (at, rotate_deg) are the ones the description explains with concrete formats: at=[x,y,z] and rotate_deg=[rx,ry,rz]. Units (metres) are also supplied here. It adds genuine value over the schema, though it says nothing about name.

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 (add) and resource (a box) in the named Shape Studio context, so an agent can separate it from shape_add_cylinder/sphere/wedge by the resource alone. It stops short of explicit sibling differentiation (e.g., vs. shape_add_polygon_prism or shape_extrude_sketch) but the verb+resource pairing is unambiguous.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance, and no prerequisites (e.g., that a document must exist, cf. shape_new_document / project_new are siblings). The description only says what it adds, not when it is the right choice among the many shape_add_* alternatives.

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