geometry-create_surface

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It does not disclose any side effects, return values, or what happens in the scene (e.g., whether it creates a new object, replaces existing ones, or commits changes). The one-line description provides no behavioral transparency.

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 a single sentence with no fluff, so it is structurally concise. However, it is too under-specified to be considered appropriately sized for a tool with 6 parameters and no annotations. It does not front-load key information like the full range of primitives it can create.

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 tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not mention the enumerated types, the coordinate system for location/rotation, or any prerequisites. The description is inadequate for an agent to understand the tool's full capabilities and invocation requirements.

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%. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema titles and types. It does not explain how parameters like 'type', 'scale', or 'radius' interact, nor does it clarify the meaning of the CURVE and CIRCLE options in a surface creation tool. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Create a NURBS surface primitive' which is a clear verb and resource, but it is misleading because the 'type' enum includes CURVE, CIRCLE, and other non-surface primitives. It does not accurately distinguish from sibling tools like geometry-create_curve, making the purpose ambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, exclusions, or alternatives. The minimal 'Create a NURBS surface primitive' implies usage, but it lacks explicit direction to disambiguate from other creation tools.

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