silhouette_add_box_template

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so safety is partly covered; the description adds the valuable detail that output carries distinct CUT and SCORE layers. It omits whether the template is added into the current design, what happens on repeated calls (relevant given idempotentHint=false), and that all dimensions are in millimeters.

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 sentences, no filler, and the core capability is front-loaded before the enumerated template values. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is redundant.

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 an 8-parameter generator with zero schema description coverage and no output schema, two sentences are thin: seven parameters and their units/effects are undocumented. The agent can pick a template but cannot confidently set dimensions or understand the placement semantics.

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% across 8 parameters, so the description must carry the load, and it only enumerates the 5 allowed values for 'template' — genuinely useful since the schema has no enum. It says nothing about x_mm/y_mm placement, width_mm, depth_mm, body_height_mm, the required 'design' argument, or what dashed_score controls.

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?

"Generate a ready-to-cut parametric packaging / papercraft template with CUT and SCORE layers" is a specific verb plus resource plus output artifact, which clearly separates it from primitive-shape siblings like silhouette_add_rectangle or silhouette_add_circle. It falls short of 5 because it never distinguishes itself from silhouette_import_svg or silhouette_new_design as alternative ways to get geometry onto a design.

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 template list implicitly tells the agent this tool is for packaging/papercraft folding structures, so usage is inferable, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. Nothing states whether the template is appended to the current design or requires prior design setup.

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