create_primitive

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

Annotations already declare the write/non-destructive/non-open-world profile, so the bar is lower, and the description adds real context beyond that: size is in metres with no hidden scale, anchor is a fraction of the bounding box placed at the world point, rotation order is world X then Y then Z about 'at', and size is pre-rotation. It also hints at the return ('the size and box after the turn'). It doesn't cover failure modes or permission needs, keeping it below 5.

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 text is dense and front-loaded, leading with the core sizing constraint and then unpacking anchor, size, and rotation in logical order. Every sentence carries geometric information, though the run-on style (multiple concepts per sentence) slightly reduces scannability.

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 output schema and no schema descriptions, the definition supplies the placement, sizing, rotation, and segment semantics an agent needs, plus a note on the returned size/box. It is nearly complete, with only the 'kind' enum meanings and naming conventions left unstated.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage across 7 parameters, the description carries the full burden and mostly delivers: it explains size semantics (including the torus-specific [outer width, outer depth, tube thickness]), segments as the count around the ring, anchor as bounding-box fractions 0..1, at as the world point, and rotate_deg as [rx, ry, rz] with order. Only 'kind' enum values and 'name' are left implicit, which is minor.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a primitive with a real size in metres (no hidden scale).' It clearly defines the geometric construction domain and even names the shape set indirectly through the torus example. However, it never distinguishes itself from siblings like loft, text_mesh, or build_from_grid, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the entry point for placing a parametric shape at a world point. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no reference to alternative creation tools among the many siblings. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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