create_screw_boss

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states the basic outcome ('Create a hollow cylindrical screw boss') and does not disclose side effects like adding an object to the active document, unit expectations, coordinate placement, or whether the operation is destructive. This is insufficient for a mutating CAD tool.

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 one-sentence description is concise, readable, and free of filler. It loses a point because the brevity omits important context that could have been added in a few more words without becoming bloated.

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 5-parameter tool with no annotations and zero schema description coverage, the description is too sparse. It does not explain how doc_name and name are used, how the boss relates to the active document, or hoe it differs from similar sibling tools like create_heatset_insert_boss. The presence of an output schema helps with return values but does not compensate for missing invocation context.

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 provides no parameter-specific meaning beyond the names in the schema. The word 'hollow' hints at hole_radius, and 'screw boss' implies outer_radius and height, but there is no explanation of name, doc_name, required relationships, or units.

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 hollow cylindrical screw boss.' This makes the tool's core function clear. However, it does not distinguish it from closely related siblings like create_heatset_insert_boss or create_cylinder, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 alternatives such as create_cylinder, create_heatset_insert_boss, or create_shell. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or when not to use the tool.

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