solid_create_primitive

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

With only readOnlyHint=false in annotations, the description adds important behavior by disclosing the side effect ('Adds 3DSOLID entity to drawing') and the live-backend requirement. It does not discuss permissions, failure modes, or whether existing geometry is affected, but the main mutation behavior is clear.

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 compact and front-loaded: the create action and primitive list come first, followed by backend/layer behavior, side effects, and disambiguation. Every line contributes useful selection or invocation context.

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 primitive-creation tool with a complete input schema and an output schema, the description covers the essential non-schema behavior: required backend, side effect, optional layer, and sibling disambiguation. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 schema already documents kind, layer, and parameters thoroughly. The description adds only that parameters are 'typed numeric parameters' and that the output layer is applied explicitly, which is marginal beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a native ACIS BOX, CYLINDER...' and enumerates the exact primitive types. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by calling itself the 'Primary tool for baseline solid shapes' and routing boolean combination elsewhere.

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?

It gives clear usage context: the live AutoCAD backend is required, an optional output layer is applied explicitly, and boolean operations should be used to combine solids. The only gap is that it does not explicitly compare against solid_extrude, solid_revolve, or solid_sweep for non-baseline shapes.

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