add_disc

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses key behavior: the disc is centered by default at the origin, off-origin x/y are treated as dimensions, flat faces are +Z/-Z, and the tool returns mass properties. It does not detail failure modes or document-modification side effects, but it covers the essential behavioral traits.

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 front-loaded with the core geometry definition, followed by composition guidance and a prerequisite. Every sentence adds useful information with no repetition or filler.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers creation, orientation, coordinate semantics, composition, prerequisite document state, and return values ('mass properties'), which is nearly complete for this primitive, though parameter-level details for all five parameters are not fully spelled out.

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 explains x_mm/y_mm centering semantics and implies diameter/thickness through 'circle extruded along +Z', but it does not explicitly describe diameter_mm, thickness_mm, or the name parameter beyond what their titles suggest.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a disc/puck/flange: a circle extruded along +Z'. It also specifies orientation and centering, so an agent can distinguish this primitive from generic extrusion or other add_* siblings.

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?

It gives clear context: 'Use new_document first' and notes that add_hole and add_circular_pattern compose with it for round-flange bolt circles. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over add_cylinder or add_extruded_profile, but the intended use case is clear.

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