build_torus

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. While 'Build TORUS' implies a creation/mutation operation, it doesn't describe what actually happens (e.g., whether blocks are placed in the world, if it's destructive to existing structures, permission requirements, or rate limits). The description lacks critical behavioral context for a building 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 efficiently structured in two sentences: one stating purpose with examples, another listing parameters. However, the first sentence could be more focused by removing some redundant examples (e.g., 'donut, ring, circular fountain' convey similar concepts).

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 9-parameter building tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool actually produces (e.g., a 3D structure in the world), how it interacts with the environment, or what happens on execution. The parameter listing doesn't compensate for missing behavioral context.

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 9 parameters thoroughly. The description lists required parameters but adds minimal value beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships between parameters or provide additional context not in parameter descriptions). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does 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 tool builds a torus with specific examples (donut, ring, etc.), providing a specific verb+resource. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like build_sphere or build_cylinder, which would require mentioning unique torus characteristics beyond the examples given.

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_sphere or build_cylinder. 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.