Shape add wedge

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description is not carrying that burden. It does add genuinely useful behavior the annotations lack: the slope orientation along +x and the unit '(m)' for the geometry. It omits default placement, whether geometry is added to the current document or a new one, and any precondition on an open document.

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?

One dense sentence with the tool context front-loaded and zero waste; 'Base w×d, height h' is compact but decodable against the schema's w/d/h names. The abbreviation style is terse rather than padded, though it edges toward under-specification.

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 creation tool with no output schema and no schema descriptions, the core geometry and units are covered adequately and annotations handle the safety profile. Missing are the semantics of at/rotate_deg placement and surf_id assignment, which an agent needs to invoke the tool beyond its defaults.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does so for the three required params by mapping 'Base w×d, height h' and supplying the metre unit. However, five optional params (at, name, color, surf_id, rotate_deg) have no meaning anywhere, so the compensation is only partial.

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 ('right-angle wedge (ramp)'), and adds distinguishing geometry: base w×d, height h, slope descending along +x. This separates it from the other shape_add_* primitives (box, cone, sphere, torus) without opening a schema. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative or scope condition, so it lands at 4 rather than 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 guidance, no statement of prerequisites (e.g., whether a Shape Studio document must already exist, as shape_new_document implies), and no routing to alternatives such as shape_extrude_sketch, shape_push_pull, or add_ramp. The 'Shape Studio:' prefix hints at context but gives the agent nothing actionable about selection.

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