Create morphs

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

Goes well beyond annotations (which only cover readOnly/destructive/idempotent) by disclosing the one-undo-step atomicity, the closed-to-Solid / open-to-Surface rule, coordinate frame (x/y project, z relative to home story), surface assignment inheritance, and default resolution from tool defaults. The return contract '[{guid, type} | {error}] in input order' is a valuable behavioral detail.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then dense geometry semantics that each earn their place for such a complex tool. It is long but not padded; only the multi-clause geometry sentence is heavy, which is defensible given three distinct body representations.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return shape and order, coordinates, defaults, and the Solid/Surface determination rule. For a 2-param but deeply nested geometry tool, this covers everything an agent needs to construct a valid call.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine interpretive value: it explains the three mutually-exclusive geometry kinds, counter-clockwise face winding, meters/degrees units, and per-face surface inheritance ('surface' covers the rest). This meaningfully supplements rather than repeats the schema.

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 with a clarifying gloss: 'Creates morphs (free-form 3D bodies) in one undo step.' It distinguishes morphs from other body-creating siblings (create_shells, create_slabs, create_meshes) by defining them as free-form 3D bodies, so an agent can identify the correct tool without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly routes to related tools: read back with get_element_details/get_morph_geometry, change with modify_morphs, combine with solid_operation. It gives clear context for the create-modify-read workflow, though it does not explicitly exclude alternative body creators (shells/slabs/meshes) or state prerequisites.

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