Shape add cylinder

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

Annotations declare a non-idempotent, non-destructive write, so the safety profile is already covered. The description usefully adds placement semantics (axis orientation, origin at bottom center, metric units) that neither annotations nor schema state, but says nothing about undo, required document state, or what happens to the new node.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the parenthetical packs the highest-value geometry facts. It is arguably terse to the point of omitting needed guidance, but as conciseness it is efficient.

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-parameter mutating tool with 38% schema coverage and no output schema, the description leaves too much open: it never says which parameters are required (r, h), whether 'at' defaults to the origin, what identifiers or values color/surf_id accept, or what the tool returns on success.

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 only 38%: h, r, and segments are documented, while at, name, color, surf_id, and rotate_deg are bare. The description partially compensates by establishing the metric unit and the z-axis/bottom-center frame, which clarify at and rotate_deg, but color, surf_id, and name remain unexplained anywhere.

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?

Specific verb (add) plus resource (cylinder) with a precise geometric convention: axis along z, origin at bottom center, units in meters. That convention distinguishes it in substance from shape_add_sphere/box/cone, though the description never names those siblings to make the routing explicit.

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, no prerequisites (e.g., whether a document must exist first via shape_new_document), and no mention of alternatives such as shape_extrude_sketch or shape_add_revolve for non-primitive shapes. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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