create_fan_mount

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only states the object created; it does not say whether the plate is added to the active document, where it is placed, what units are used, or what side effects occur. 'Four clearance holes' is the only behavioral detail beyond the term 'create.'

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 one concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place by identifying the object and its key geometric features.

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?

Despite the output schema, this is a 6-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no parameter descriptions. Missing context includes target document behavior, units, hole layout constraints, and coordinate placement, so an agent would need to infer too much before calling it.

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, but it only loosely implies that size is the plate side and hole_radius/hole_spacing describe the clearance holes. Parameters such as doc_name, name, and thickness are not explained beyond their titles/defaults.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a square fan mounting plate with four clearance holes.' This clearly identifies the object and distinguishes it from generic create_box/create_cylinder tools and from other mounting/vent features.

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 implies the tool is for creating fan mount plates, and the name aligns with that use. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives like create_box, create_screw_boss, or create_vent_pattern, and names no exclusions.

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