add_cylinder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Add a cylinder to a geometry sequence' and does not explain whether the cylinder is appended, merged, transformed, or what side effects occur on the sequence. This is a minimal statement of effect but lacks behavioral depth.

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 clear sentence with no filler or repetition. It is front-loaded with the core action and object, though it is so minimal that conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.

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?

With no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and 7 parameters including several opaque ones, a one-sentence description leaves the agent without enough context to call the tool correctly. The output schema exists but does not explain parameter semantics or geometry-sequence behavior.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain geom_tag, dims, pos format, axis, or tag. The word 'cylinder' gives some semantic context for r and h, but the most ambiguous required parameters remain unexplained.

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 states a specific action ('Add') and resource ('a cylinder to a geometry sequence'), making the basic purpose clear. It is distinguishable from siblings like add_sphere and add_block by naming the geometry type, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from those alternatives.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus add_sphere, add_block, or import_geometry. The only implicit guidance is the shape name itself, which is not enough to help an agent decide between geometry-creation tools.

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