solid_cone

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It provides placement and orientation (base center at (cx,cy,z), height along Z) but does not state side effects (e.g., adds a solid entity to the drawing) or any special requirements, so it partially covers the behavior.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the main purpose without extraneous detail.

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, the description sufficiently defines the tool's purpose and geometry. However, it omits any mention of prerequisites, units, or interaction with the current coordinate system, so it is not fully complete.

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?

All parameters are indirectly defined through the geometric description: cx/cy are x/y center coordinates, z is the base Z coordinate, radius is base radius, height is along Z. Since schema coverage is 0%, this description is the only source of parameter semantics and it does add meaning beyond the bare names.

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 identifies the tool as creating a 3D solid cone and specifies its defining parameters (base center, radius, height along Z). It distinguishes from sibling solid primitives by naming the geometry explicitly, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'creates' or 'draws'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to choose this tool over alternatives like solid_cylinder or sweep_profile. The description only states the geometry, not the use cases or exclusions.

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