create_box

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states units (metres) and the default origin, but says nothing about permissions, whether the created entity is selectable/editable afterward, undo semantics, or failure modes for degenerate dimensions.

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?

Three tight sentences that front-load the core action and then the optional origin, with no filler. The trailing unit statement is slightly redundant with the schema but reinforces the crucial metres convention.

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 6-parameter geometry-creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the geometric essentials but leaves layer/material unaddressed and the "named group" phrasing unexplained against the schema.

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 67%; the description usefully restates that width/depth/height and origin are in metres and defines origin as the base corner, but it omits the layer and material parameters entirely, leaving roughly a third of parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ("Create a 3-D box (rectangular prism)") and clarifies it produces a named group, which distinguishes it from siblings like create_face, create_circle, or create_group. However, the "named group" claim is confusing because the schema exposes no name parameter, and no explicit sibling differentiation is offered.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as create_face, push_pull, or create_component. The agent must infer usage purely from the name and geometry vocabulary.

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