create_polygon

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses only the unit system (metres) and that the polygon is regular; it says nothing about whether a face/group is created, how layer and material defaults behave, or whether the result is added to the model or an existing component.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the core purpose and the unit convention are front-loaded. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.

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 7-parameter geometry creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It omits orientation behavior (normal), layer/material handling, inscribed vs circumscribed consequences, and what the tool returns, all of which an agent needs before invoking it.

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 71%, with center, normal, radius, inscribed, and num_sides documented in the schema itself. The description adds a useful global note that all lengths and coordinates are in metres, which reinforces rather than extends the schema. It adds nothing about layer or material semantics.

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 and resource: 'Create a regular polygon ... with n sides', with examples (triangle, pentagon, hexagon) that pin down the geometry. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like create_circle or create_box, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 indication of when to use this versus create_circle, create_face, or create_box, and no prerequisites or context for when a polygon is the right primitive. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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