add_cylinder

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the description carries a lower burden — but it adds almost nothing: it never says the operation mutates the active document, adds a body, or is irreversible. 'Inspect verified measurements and error evidence' gestures at post-call behavior without explaining what evidence is returned or what state changes on failure.

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 short sentences and front-loaded with the core action, which is good. The middle sentence about the 'independent native SOLIDWORKS engine' earns little, and the final sentence is vague enough that it consumes space without conveying actionable 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?

A mutation tool with no output schema should clarify what gets created, where it lands, and what the caller receives; this description leaves all of that ambiguous. Given zero parameter documentation coverage and destructive semantics, an agent lacks what it needs to call this confidently beyond the bare minimum.

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 explain all three parameters, but it only asserts units (mm, degrees, kg) — and the unit for diameter_mm/height_mm is already encoded in the property names. The optional 'name' parameter (defaulting to 'Revolve') is never mentioned, leaving a non-obvious naming behavior undocumented.

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+resource ('Add cylinder') that is immediately distinguishable from siblings like add_cone, add_disc and add_box. However, 'through the independent native SOLIDWORKS engine' is positioning language rather than a functional differentiator, so the purpose is clear but not enriched.

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, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. an open part document), and no routing to alternatives such as add_cone or add_revolved_profile for similar geometry. 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.