entity_create_box

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description usefully adds that the operation is wrapped in an undo transaction (so it is reversible via model_undo) and notes the default unit, which is real value beyond the annotations. It does not clarify idempotentHint=false (repeat calls create multiple boxes) or the effect of the parent/origin parameters.

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?

Two short front-loaded sentences with no wasted words; the scoping constraint and default unit come first. It is terse rather than over-padded, though the extreme brevity contributes to the parameter gaps.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with nested objects, a 0%-covered schema, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. An agent has no way to know what nested parents are, how origin interacts with size, or what the undo transaction means for repeated calls.

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% across 9 parameters, so the description must carry the burden, and it does not. It only restates the default unit ('mm'), which the schema already encodes as a default, and says nothing about size, origin, parent, model_id, parent_id, or active_path.

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+resource ('Create a box') and adds a distinguishing spatial constraint ('toward positive Z') that separates it from entity_create_cylinder. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast the sibling creation tools.

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 on when to use this versus entity_create_cylinder, entity_create_mesh, or entity_extrude, and no prerequisites or preconditions stated. The 'toward positive Z' clause hints at orientation but not at tool selection.

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