cad_model_build

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

Annotations already signal destructive, non-read-only behavior; the description adds useful traits: deterministic reconstruction, the need to retain the recipe and returned liveHandles for later rebuilds, and the build/rebuild duality. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 the core purpose front-loaded and the follow-up sentence adding only the key lifecycle instruction. No filler or schema repetition.

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 complex nested schema with no output schema, the description covers the high-level workflow (build/rebuild, keep recipe/handles) but leaves the roles of overrides and previousHandles implicit and does not describe the shape/format of the returned liveHandles. It is enough for a general understanding but not fully sufficient for correct invocation without inspecting the schema.

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%, so the description must compensate. It names the central 'recipe' object and introduces 'liveHandles' as a rebuild token, which helps infer the role of previousHandles, but it never explains overrides or the relationship between recipe.parameters and overrides. The property names in the schema carry most of the remaining meaning, so this is adequate but not rich.

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 names a specific action ('Build or rebuild'), a resource ('deterministic parameterized solid model'), and the input mechanism ('named recipe'), and adds a lifecycle cue about liveHandles. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling drawing/editing tools like cad_draw and cad_edit by anchoring it to recipe-driven model construction.

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 clear context: use for initial build or later rebuild from a recipe, and keep the recipe and returned liveHandles for subsequent calls. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it, so it falls 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.