create_pipe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a genuine behavioral fact beyond the schema: the result is one fused continuous body rather than butted cylinders. It says nothing about scene mutation, required context, or interaction with wall/caps, so the coverage is partial.

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 tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the core concept and followed by concrete use cases; no filler. The prose style is evocative but each clause carries information.

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 13-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description explains the concept and use cases but not units, defaults semantics, or the distinction from the other surface-creation siblings. Adequate as a conceptual blurb, thin as an invocation aid.

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 coverage is 77%, so the schema already documents most parameters (path, radius, wall, bend_radius, section_scale all have good descriptions). The description only echoes 'radius changes along a curved path', adding no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides — the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific geometry (a single continuous tube with varying radius along a curved path) and immediately distinguishes it from a union of primitives via 'No separate cylinders butted together'. However it never states the create action explicitly nor names the close siblings (create_sweep, create_loft, create_extrusion) it must be told apart from.

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?

The examples (exhaust header, reducer, muffler, horns, bottle necks, hoses with sleeves, branches) imply when the tool is appropriate, so usage is inferable. But there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no routing against the similar creation siblings.

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