create_shell

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states the side effect ('Create') and the result ('open-top shell'), but does not mention which document receives the object, how wall thickness relates to outer dimensions, units, placement, or any other side effects. It is not misleading, but it is too thin for a mutation 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 description is a single compact sentence with no filler, and the key purpose is front-loaded. The bracket notation is slightly terse but does not hurt readability.

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?

The definition is enough to identify the tool, but not enough to invoke it confidently in all cases. It does not explain wall thickness semantics, units, whether the shell lands in the active document, or how `doc_name` and `name` are used. An output schema exists but does not compensate for these parameter and behavioral 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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It does clarify that the required `outer` array should be populated as [length, width, height]. However, `wall` is left as a bare number with no explanation of thickness or units, and `name`/`doc_name` are only inferable from their property names.

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 and resource: 'Create a rectangular open-top shell', which clearly distinguishes this from solid primitives like create_box or create_cylinder. The input order is hinted by '[length,width,height]'. It does not explicitly contrast with create_box, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use create_shell versus create_box or other modeling tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions, so the agent must infer the appropriate use case from the tool name and general CAD knowledge.

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