Add multiple 3D construction forms—such as boxes, cylinders, spheres, cones, wedges, or eggs—as a single scene, with optional per-form position, rotation, size, and axes display.
Add multiple 3D construction forms arranged as a scene.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| forms | Yes | Array of form definitions. | |
| showAxes | No | Show axes on all forms. Default: true. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that forms are added as a scene but does not clarify whether this replaces or appends to existing forms, how positions/rotations are interpreted, what defaults apply, or what the operation returns.
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 single sentence is front-loaded and wastes no words. It is appropriately brief, though its brevity contributes to under-specification rather than being a model of efficient completeness.
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 tool that accepts an array of structured 3D form definitions, the description is too thin. It does not explain additive vs. replacement behavior, coordinate conventions, defaults, or how the scene is composed, and there is no output schema or annotations to fill those gaps.
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 the input schema already documents the forms array and showAxes parameter. The description adds only the high-level notion of multiple forms and scene arrangement, without supplementing coordinate-system, sizing, or rotation semantics beyond what the schema provides.
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') and resource ('multiple 3D construction forms arranged as a scene'), making the basic operation clear. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the singular sibling design_add_construction_form by emphasizing multiple forms, but it does not explicitly name or differentiate against that sibling.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus design_add_construction_form or design_generate_construction_exercise. An agent must infer from the word 'multiple' that this is for batch/scene composition, but no explicit context or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.