create_cylinder

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It states that a cylinder is created and validated, but does not explain whether a document must be open, whether the cylinder is added to the active document, what validation entails, or how doc_name affects behavior.

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 a single short sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and object. It is concise, though it sacrifices useful detail.

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 that this is a creation tool with five parameters, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, the description is too thin to support correct invocation. It does not explain side effects, prerequisites, or parameter semantics, even though the presence of an output schema reduces the need to document return values.

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%, and the description adds no parameter information. While the parameter names like radius, height, angle, and doc_name are somewhat self-explanatory, the description does not clarify units, the meaning of angle, or the role of doc_name.

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 'Create' and names the precise resource 'Part cylinder', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_box and create_shell. It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool produces.

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 guidance on when to choose this tool over the many sibling creation tools, nor any mention of prerequisites such as an open document. Usage is only implied by the name and description.

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