Shape add torus

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write, so the mutating nature is covered structurally. The description adds the orientation constraint (torus lies in the xy plane), which is genuinely useful geometry context, but says nothing about undo behavior, return format, or why idempotency is false. Adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded with context and resource. No wasted words, though the ambiguous 'm' token slightly muddies an otherwise efficient line.

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 write tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is too thin: it never explains positioning, color, naming, surface binding, or segmentation, and gives no return expectations. Sibling add-shape tools suggest a shared convention the description never surfaces.

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 full burden, yet it only glosses two of eight parameters ('r=ring radius, tube=tube radius'). The trailing 'm' is cryptic and likely a unit hint, and 'at', 'rotate_deg', 'name', 'color', 'surf_id', and 'segments' are completely undocumented in both description and schema.

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 ('add a torus') and adds geometry detail beyond the name ('lying in the xy plane'). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling add-shapes (box, cylinder, sphere, cone) by the resource itself, but it never explicitly differentiates when a torus is the right choice versus those siblings, so it stops short of 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 routing. The 'Shape Studio:' prefix implies a modeling context but nothing tells the agent how this differs from shape_add_sphere or shape_add_cylinder. Usage must be fully inferred from the tool name.

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