create_primitive

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the no-hidden-scale guarantee, that size is pre-rotation, the exact rotate order (X then Y then Z about `at`, applied after placement), and that the response reports size and box post-rotation. It stops short of stating persistence/undo or naming/uniqueness behavior.

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?

Front-loads the core promise (real size, no hidden scale) and then layers geometry semantics efficiently. Dense but every clause carries information; the only minor cost is a slightly run-on middle section covering anchor and rotation in adjacent sentences.

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 a 7-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the placement, sizing, and rotation model an agent needs, plus a note on what the response contains. Missing pieces are minor (naming behavior, material/side-effect details).

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 and largely does: size units and torus ordering, anchor as bounding-box fractions 0..1 with a concrete default example, rotate_deg ordering, and segments meaning for a torus. Only `name` semantics (uniqueness/collision) and the `kind` enum are left to the schema.

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 ('Create a primitive') and immediately pins down the key distinguishing trait — real size in metres, no hidden scale — which separates it from import/loft/lathe siblings that also produce geometry.

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?

Gives rich semantics for how to use the tool correctly (anchor placement, rotation order, the barrel example), but never states when to prefer it over alternatives like text_mesh, import_glb, or boolean/combine workflows. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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