add_cone

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It explicitly warns 'This tool will update the JCAD document at the given jcad_path' and also states the return value ('The document itself'). This goes beyond a bare 'Add a cone' and is transparent about mutation.

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 a compact docstring with one line per parameter, a clear opening sentence, and a brief warning. No superfluous text; every sentence contributes necessary information. The structure is scannable and front-loaded with the purpose.

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 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, all parameter semantics, a mutation warning, and a return value. It lacks only minor details like coordinate system conventions, but the mandatory call to get_current_cad_design provides essential context for correct invocation.

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 explains every parameter in detail, including meaning and examples (e.g., angle: '0: no cone, 180: half cone, 360: full cone'). It also clarifies color formats and position/rotation semantics, fully compensating for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 'Add a cone to the document,' which is a specific verb+resource that clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like add_box, add_cylinder, and add_sphere. It unambiguously states the tool's function without ambiguity.

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 includes a mandatory prerequisite: 'you MUST first use the get_current_cad_design tool' to understand the document state. This provides clear timing/context for safe usage. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the tool name and sibling list make the choice obvious.

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