shape_add_coneCreate a cone or frustum in the fire-simulation model by defining bottom radius, top radius, and height, with optional position, rotation, color, and surface material.
Shape Studio: add a cone/frustum (r1=bottom radius, r2=top radius, axis z, m).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| h | Yes | ||
| at | No | ||
| r1 | Yes | ||
| r2 | Yes | ||
| name | No | ||
| color | No | ||
| surf_id | No | ||
| segments | No | ||
| rotate_deg | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare that this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) that is non-destructive and non-idempotent. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: it identifies the tool as part of Shape Studio, specifies the axis ('z'), and gives units ('m'). However, it does not disclose what happens to the current document, undo behavior, or how the new object is named or surfaced.
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?
A single compact sentence with zero waste. The tool's context and core purpose are front-loaded, and the parenthetical parameter clarifications are tightly integrated.
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?
Given 9 parameters, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the description is too thin. It omits the required height parameter and the meaning of most optional parameters, so an agent cannot reliably call the tool with correct optional settings.
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 must carry the burden for 9 parameters. It only clarifies r1 (bottom radius) and r2 (top radius), leaving h, at, name, color, surf_id, segments, and rotate_deg entirely undocumented. Partial compensation is better than nothing but far from sufficient.
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 ('add') and resource ('cone/frustum') and clarifies the key geometric parameters (r1, r2, axis). It is easy to distinguish from siblings like shape_add_cylinder or shape_add_sphere by resource, but it never explicitly names or contrasts an alternative.
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 alternatives such as shape_add_cylinder, shape_add_arch, or shape_add_revolve. The description is a bare command with no context about when a cone/frustum is the right shape or what prerequisites exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.