add_box

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the creation/extrusion workflow, units in millimetres, the returned feature name, the depth dimension handle 'D1@<name>', and the dimensions structure for set_dimension. It does not mention preconditions like needing an active part, but the main behavioral contract is clearly stated.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core action and method, while the second provides only high-value details about units and return values. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant wording.

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?

Given the simple primitive shape, four parameters, and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers operation, units, return values, and an integration hint for set_dimension. It could be more explicit about the active-part requirement, but the essential call context is present.

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 must compensate. It usefully explains that dimensions are in millimetres and maps width/height to the sketch and depth to the extrusion. However, the optional 'name' parameter is not explicitly described, and the meaning of the returned 'dimensions' array is mentioned only as output context.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Add a rectangular block', then details the construction method (sketch width x height, extrude by depth). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling primitive tools like add_disc, add_cylinder, and add_extruded_profile.

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?

Usage context is implied by the 'rectangular block' phrasing, so an agent can infer it is for box-like solids. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like add_extruded_profile, nor any mention of exclusions or prerequisites.

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