add_cone

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does valuable work by disclosing that mass properties are returned and spelling out the volume formula, and by hinting that it operates on the active document. It does not say whether the result is a new body or a merged feature, what happens with invalid diameter combinations, or anything about units failure modes beyond the _mm suffixes.

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?

Three short lines, front-loaded with the verb and construction method, then the edge-case rule, then the return contract. The formula earns its place because it tells the agent what to expect back without an output schema.

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 simple primitive-creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is built, the degenerate case, and the return payload well enough to call it correctly. The only real gap is the unexplained 'name' parameter and the absence of any statement about whether the solid is added as a new body in the active document.

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 partially does: the 'top_diameter_mm = 0' rule gives real semantics for that parameter, and the volume formula's rb/rt/h implicitly map to bottom_diameter_mm, top_diameter_mm, and height_mm. The fourth parameter, name (default 'Revolve'), is never explained, so coverage remains incomplete for a 4-parameter tool.

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 and resource ('Create a cone/frustum') plus the exact construction method ('revolving a trapezoidal profile 360°'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like add_cylinder, add_disc, and add_revolved_profile. The clarifying rule 'top_diameter_mm = 0 gives a full cone' removes the only ambiguity about what shape results.

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?

'Use new_document first' is a genuine prerequisite that helps sequencing, but there is no guidance on when to pick this over add_cylinder, add_disc, or the more general add_revolved_profile, and no exclusion for cases where a frustum is degenerate (e.g. top > bottom).

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