create_box

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It only states that the box is axis-aligned and origin_mm is the min corner. It does not clarify if the box is added to an existing component, how it interacts with the coordinate system, or if it overwrites or merges with existing geometry.

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 very concise with a single sentence, but it lacks structure and important details. While not verbose, it is under-specified, missing necessary information for correct usage.

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?

Given the 6 required parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how the component parameter relates to the box, the units (though implied by mm suffixes), or the resulting behavior (e.g., placement, orientation).

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 low (33%), and the description only adds meaning for origin_mm (the min corner). Other parameters like width_mm, depth_mm, height_mm, component, and name are left unexplained beyond the schema's minimal descriptions.

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 clearly states the action (create) and the object (axis-aligned solid box), which distinguishes it from siblings like create_cylinder or create_component. However, it could be more specific by mentioning the context (e.g., within a component).

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as create_cylinder for round shapes or shell_body for hollowing. The description does not mention prerequisites or limitations.

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