entity_create_cylinder

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotation facts: the cylinder axis (+Z), that units are mm, and that smooth sides are optional. It omits what the tool returns (entity id/handle?), whether parenting requires an existing model context, and how segments affects output.

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?

One tight sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the two facts that matter most (axis, units). Nothing is wasted, but the brevity is partly under-specification rather than restraint.

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 12-parameter geometry-creation tool with a nested parent object and no output schema, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot tell how to place the cylinder in a model, what identifiers come back, or what minimum viable call looks like beyond the two required fields.

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 12 parameters, including a nested parent object, so the description carries the full burden and mostly fails it. It covers only unit (mm) and smooth; radius_mm, height_mm, segments, origin, parent, model_id, active_path and tag/name are all unexplained beyond their 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?

Specific verb+resource: creates a cylinder primitive, with orientation and unit qualifiers. Siblings entity_create_box and entity_create_mesh make the resource class inferable, though the description never names them to draw the line explicitly.

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 statement of when to use this rather than entity_create_box, entity_create_mesh, entity_extrude, or entity_duplicate. A parent/child insertion tool gives no guidance on how it interacts with the scene hierarchy or selection-based siblings.

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