build_hyperboloid

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Build' which implies a write/mutation operation but doesn't mention permissions needed, whether it's destructive to existing blocks, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The description is minimal and lacks critical behavioral context for a construction tool.

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?

The description is brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the second sentence listing parameters feels somewhat redundant given the comprehensive schema. Overall efficient but could be more polished.

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 a construction tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what gets built (blocks placed in world), success conditions, error handling, or how it differs from similar building tools. The agent would lack crucial context for proper use.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description lists required parameters but adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships between parameters or provide usage examples). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the verb 'Build' and resource 'HYPERBOLOID' with specific examples (cooling tower, hourglass, nuclear tower), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like build_cylinder or build_paraboloid, which would require 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like build_cylinder or build_sphere. It lists required parameters but offers no context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools.

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