add_torus

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the tool updates the document and returns the document itself, and it warns about the required pre-step. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., whether an existing object is overwritten) or error behaviors, and the return description is minimal. This is adequate but not deeply transparent.

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 one-sentence purpose, a clear list of parameter explanations, a return note, and a warning. The param list is somewhat lengthy but necessary given the lack of schema descriptions. The warning is front-loaded enough to emphasize the prerequisite. No filler or redundancy, so it earns a 4 rather than a 3.

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?

Despite having 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers most essentials: what the tool does, the key parameter semantics, the return value, and the necessary precondition. Missing details include a thorough definition of jcad_path and coordinate system specifics, but overall the description is complete enough for an agent to use the tool 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?

Although schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates well by explaining 10 of 11 parameters, including radius meanings, angle ranges with examples, and color format. The only required parameter, jcad_path, is not explicitly described in the parameter list, and 'position' and 'rotation_axis' are somewhat vague. Still, the description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema's bare type definitions.

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 clearly states 'Add a torus to the document' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like add_box, add_sphere, and add_cone by naming the exact shape. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately understandable.

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 provides clear usage context by warning that the tool updates the JCAD document and instructs that one must first use 'get_current_cad_design' to understand the current state. This is a concrete prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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