geometry_create

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 lists parameter defaults and returns 'Created geometry info,' but does not disclose side effects, error conditions, or whether the operation is destructive. This is acceptable but lacks 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 very concise: a clear purpose statement, an important note, and a bulleted parameter list. Every sentence serves a purpose, no fluff.

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?

Given the sibling tools, the description adequately identifies this as the step to create a geometry container before adding primitives. It includes a prerequisite note and parameter defaults, but lacks details on how to set the current model or what 'geometry sequence' entails.

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. It explains each parameter with defaults and special notes (e.g., space_dimension: '2 for 2D, 3 for 3D'). This adds useful meaning beyond the schema, though more detail on allowed values or constraints would improve it.

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 clearly states 'Create a new geometry sequence in the model's component,' using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like geometry_add_block which add primitives to an existing geometry sequence.

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 explicitly warns that a component must exist first and suggests model_create_component if needed. This provides a clear prerequisite, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like geometry_add_*.

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