add_box

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explicitly warns that the tool updates the JCAD document at the given jcad_path and states the return value (the document itself). However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral aspects like whether the operation is destructive, requires permissions, or what happens on failure.

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 well-structured: a clear one-line purpose, individual parameter docs, and a warning section. All sentences contribute value, though the param list is a bit verbose but necessary given the schema lacks descriptions.

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?

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all parameters, states the return type, and provides a critical prerequisite warning. This is fairly complete, but it could be enhanced by noting edge cases or the nature of the document update (e.g., persistent vs in-memory).

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%, but the description compensates with :param lines for every parameter, adding meaningful details such as color format ('#FF5733' or RGB float list) and units for rotation_angle (degrees). Some descriptions like 'position: The shape 3D position' could be more specific, but overall it provides substantial value beyond 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?

Description clearly states the verb ('Add') and resource ('a box to the document'), and specifically distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_cone, add_sphere, etc. The scope is unambiguous.

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?

Description gives explicit prerequisite guidance: 'you MUST first use the get_current_cad_design tool' to understand the document state before adding. This tells the agent when to use the tool, though it doesn't mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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