add_boss_on_face

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It helpfully discloses units (mm) and the return payload ('mass properties and dimensions'), and the face-finding behavior, but it does not state that this is an additive/material-creating operation, nor any permission or reversibility context expected of 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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with the core action first and supporting details after; minimal waste. It is dense rather than padded.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the essential geometry and even the return values. However, the additive/mutating nature and the undocumented 'name' parameter leave gaps an agent would need filled.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies height_mm, the (x, y, z) centring semantics, and the 'round' nature implying diameter, but leaves the diameter unit/meaning and the optional 'name' parameter (default 'Boss') unaddressed.

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?

States a specific verb ('Grow') and resource ('round boss (standoff, peg)'), with the key geometric modifiers height_mm and a centring point. It distinguishes itself from near-siblings by noting it acts on 'ANY planar face' and tying face-finding to add_hole_on_face, though it does not explicitly separate itself from add_cylinder/add_disc.

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 reference to how add_hole_on_face locates the face gives implied guidance, and the PCB-standoff note hints at a scenario, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or a named alternative tool for the same job. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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