add_pulley

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it states the axis (+Z), the toothed belt face extent ([0, width]), the effect of flanged (adds two guide discs), the height-overrides-width rule, and the return fields. It also gives the pitch-diameter formula and its mating significance, which are behavioral details not inferable from the schema.

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 appropriately sized for a 7-parameter CAD creation tool and is front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence earns its place by adding parameter meaning, geometric behavior, or return-value context, with no redundant restatement of structured fields.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is complete: it covers purpose, all parameter semantics, geometric behavior, constraints, and return shape. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly without opening other documentation.

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, and it does for every parameter. It defines units and meaning for teeth, belt_pitch, width, height, flanged, placement, and name, including constraints (teeth >= 6), examples (2.0 for GT2, 3.0 for GT3/HTD-3M), and the pitch-diameter formula.

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 creation action and resource: 'Add a timing-belt (or V) pulley as a static solid.' It immediately distinguishes the tool from generic primitive creation and from other drive-component siblings like add_gear, add_sprocket, and add_rack by defining the exact mechanical part and its geometry.

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: it is for timing-belt or V pulleys modeled as static solids, with examples such as GT2 and GT3/HTD-3M belt pitches. It does not explicitly state when to choose this over sibling tools like add_gear or add_sprocket, but the context is strong enough to route usage correctly.

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