add_wheels

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

Annotations declare a non-destructive write (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds valuable behavior beyond that: it creates multiple named parts (wheel_fl/fr/bl/br) in one call and warns that body geometry must not overlap the result. It does not say whether existing wheels are replaced or how name collisions are handled, which keeps it from a 5.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by naming convention, a concrete example, and a placement warning. It is dense and mostly earns its length, though the axle-count naming enumeration is somewhat long for marginal benefit.

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?

With 8 parameters, 6 required, no output schema and no nested objects beyond AxleSpec, the description covers naming, geometry, and the overlap constraint well. It omits what happens on failure/overlap and whether prior wheels are replaced, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning the schema lacks: the worked example ties axles, diameter, width and inner_x together (inner_x 9, width 2 → wheels at X -11..-9 and 9..11) and explains the naming derivation across 1–4 axles. That is added value above the per-parameter text.

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 and resource ('Add a left and a right wheel per axle, as separate parts with axle data for the XML') plus the scope of what it produces. This is clearly a higher-level semantic wheel builder, distinguishable from generic draw_cylinder/draw_box siblings without opening any schema.

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 description supplies a prerequisite constraint ('The body must not overlap the wheels: raise the body or carve wheel arches') and geometric conventions, which implicitly tells the agent when this tool applies. However, it never names an alternative (e.g. draw_cylinder for custom wheels) or states when not to use it, so routing guidance is only implied.

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