create_axis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add real value by disclosing the construction method ('intersection of two built-in planes'), but it omits the mutation profile of a creation tool, side effects, and any document/permission prerequisites, leaving notable gaps.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, with a compact second sentence supporting it. The plane-intersection detail earns its place, though the parenthetical mapping could be tighter.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the single parameter is fully covered by the schema. What remains missing is usage context and prerequisites for a document-mutating creation tool, so it is adequate but not complete.

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 100%, and the schema already documents 'reference' as 'x', 'y' or 'z' with case-insensitivity and +/- stripping. The description adds the geometric derivation for each direction, which is context but not parameter clarification beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a reference axis') plus the scope ('along a principal direction'), which is enough to distinguish it from create_reference_plane and create_reference_point in the sibling list. However, it never names those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (e.g. an open document is required), and no routing to alternatives like create_reference_plane. The description only explains what the tool does, not when an agent should pick it.

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