add_disc

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states the geometry, the centered-at-origin placement, the +Z extrusion direction, the flat face orientations, the return of mass properties, and the prerequisite of new_part. This is strong transparency for a creation 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 compact and front-loaded, with no filler. The geometric definition comes first, followed by composition guidance and the prerequisite, and every sentence earns its place.

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 simple three-parameter creation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers orientation, face placement, composition with other tools, return value, and the required first step. Very little is missing that an agent needs to call it correctly.

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. It implies that diameter_mm controls the circle and thickness_mm controls the extrusion, but it never explicitly names these parameters or explains the optional name default. This is partial but not complete compensation for the missing schema descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a disc/puck/flange: a circle extruded along +Z, centred at the origin.' This makes the tool's core function unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling extrusion tools by specifying orientation and placement.

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?

It gives clear usage context: 'Use new_part first' and explains that the flat ±Z faces make add_hole and add_circular_pattern compose with it for bolt circles. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like add_cylinder, but the provided context is enough to guide selection.

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