create_point3d

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds useful context: the tool creates a 3D point and verifies the before/after snapshot delta. However, it does not disclose side effects, persistence behavior, validation semantics, or what the verification result looks like.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise and readable, though it omits enough operational detail that conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.

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 tool with no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, this one-line description is far from sufficient. An agent cannot determine argument semantics, expected results, failure modes, or preconditions.

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?

The schema contains 7 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description explains none of them. There is no indication of what name, origin, max_items, min_added, document_id, require_no_changed, or require_no_removed mean or how they should be set.

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 3D point in the active part.' It clearly identifies the action and the target context, distinguishing it from sketch-point creation tools even though no sibling is named.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternatives are mentioned. The description implies usage from 'active part' but does not state prerequisites or how this compares to create_sketch_point or other creation tools.

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