Place a geometric shape

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects, but it only mentions geometric modes and the radius-to-diameter rule. It does not state that blocks are written to the world, that snapshot/dry_run affect undoability, or what permissions might be required. For a mutating tool this is a meaningful transparency gap.

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 two compact sentences with no filler, front-loading the shape list and then giving the single most important geometry caveat. Every sentence earns its place.

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 18 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description needs to signal world mutation, preview/undo behavior, or at least distinguish from related region tools. It does none of these. The result is too sparse to fully support correct tool selection and invocation.

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 89%, so the schema already documents nearly all parameters in detail. The description lists shapes already present in the enum and repeats the schema's 'diameter = 2r+1' note, adding no new parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Title and first sentence name the operation (placing) and enumerate seven supported primitives, so an agent knows exactly what resource this produces. It is clear enough but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like fill or build, so it falls one step short of top marks.

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 provides no guidance on when to use place_shape versus fill, build, or paste_schematic. There are no conditions, exclusions, or use-case examples. An agent is left to infer selection context from the tool name alone.

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