create_part_primitive

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond them: the operation is undoable. It says nothing about prerequisite state (document/body context) or side effects on existing geometry, so a middle score fits.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the parenthetical shape list and undo note appended. Nothing is redundant, though the extreme terseness is under-specification rather than true economy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a 5-parameter geometry-creation tool with zero schema descriptions, the definition omits the document targeting, coordinate/unit conventions, and dimension key structure that an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 5 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails it. It hints at the accepted values for shape_type ('Box', 'Cylinder', 'Sphere', 'Cone') but never explains name, doc_name, position, or dimensions (units, ordering, expected keys) — the fields an agent is most likely to get wrong.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') plus a specific resource ('Part CSG primitive') and enumerates the four valid shape variants, so an agent immediately knows what the tool produces. It does not explicitly contrast itself with nearby creators such as create_sketch or create_partdesign_body, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 and no named alternative. The agent is not told whether this requires an open document, an active Part workbench, or a pre-existing body, nor how it relates to the other create_* tools.

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