create_circle

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only partially does so. It discloses the return value ('returns edges forming the circle') and the unit convention (metres), but never says whether the geometry is actually committed to the model versus merely returned, whether it needs an active model or write permissions, or whether the operation is undoable. For an unannotated mutation tool this leaves significant ambiguity.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero padding: the create action and its defining inputs come first, followed by the return value and the global unit convention. Every clause 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?

For a 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core geometry and the return shape but omits prerequisites, the fate of unspecified parameters, and any behavioral traits of the operation. It is adequate-but-gappy rather than complete.

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%, so the schema already documents center, normal, radius and segments. The description does add value by declaring that ALL lengths and coordinates are in metres, extending the unit contract the schema only states for radius, but it is silent on layer, material and segments, which have little or no schema description.

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 (Create) plus resource (a circle in SketchUp) and the geometric inputs that define it (center, normal, radius), which is enough to distinguish it from create_arc and create_polygon by implication. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, so it lands just below the top band.

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/when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative: nothing tells the agent whether to reach for create_circle instead of create_polygon with many segments, or create_edge loops. No prerequisites (active model, edit context, units regime) are stated either.

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