add_block

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool adds a box to a geometry sequence, but does not say whether the operation is destructive, whether it requires an existing geometry sequence, whether it is idempotent, or what side effects it has. The agent is left to infer the mutating behavior.

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 a single, compact sentence with no filler, and the parenthetical '(box)' adds useful clarity. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, though it lacks any additional structural elements such as usage cues; conciseness is not the weakness here.

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 tool with five parameters, zero annotations, and zero schema descriptions, this one-sentence description is not enough for an agent to invoke it confidently. The presence of an output schema may cover return values, but the description leaves key operational details such as required geometry context, parameter semantics, and side effects unexplained. It is only slightly more informative than a bare tool name.

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 0%, and the description adds no meaning for any of the five parameters. It does not clarify how geom_tag, dims, size, and pos relate, what units or coordinate conventions are expected, or what the optional tag parameter means. The description provides no parameter semantics beyond the bare field names.

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 begins with a specific verb ('Add'), names the exact resource ('a block (box)'), and locates it in a geometry sequence. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_sphere and add_cylinder, which target other primitive types.

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 add_block versus alternatives such as add_sphere, add_cylinder, or import_geometry. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no mention of the conditions under which adding a block is the right operation.

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