ap_shape_add

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It makes the action's additive nature clear, lists special values like 'empty', and warns that exact names are build-specific. It does not mention return values or preconditions like an open project, but for a simple create-primitive operation that is a minor gap.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The action and object are front-loaded, and the alternative lookup instruction is placed efficiently at the end.

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?

The tool is simple: one required parameter, no output schema, and no nested objects. The description plus schema are nearly sufficient for correct invocation. A small gap is the absence of any statement about return values or error behavior if an invalid name is passed.

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?

The schema already covers the single parameter with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by emphasizing that names are build-specific and by pointing to ap_shape_list for authoritative values, which helps the agent supply a valid parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('Add'), a clear resource ('a built-in primitive'), and scopes the action to 'the scene'. It lists the available shapes and distinguishes itself from ap_shape_list by clarifying it creates rather than lists.

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?

It gives a clear, actionable alternative: use ap_shape_list for this build's exact names. This is strong contextual guidance for choosing whether to call this tool or its sibling, though it does not enumerate exclusions for other potentially related tools like ap_append_mesh.

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