create_box

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context beyond geometry, such as how operation=cut affects targets or what happens with operation=add. It does not contradict annotations, but it contributes little behavioral transparency.

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 short sentence with no filler and front-loads the core shape constraint. It is concise, though its brevity comes at the cost of useful invocation context.

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?

Given the rich input schema, existing annotations, and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate for calling the tool. However, it omits the add/cut behavior and target interaction that distinguish this from a simple create-only tool.

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 80%, so most parameters already have documented semantics. The description only implies corner_min/corner_max geometry and adds no meaning for name, targets, or operation beyond what the schema provides.

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 identifies the resource and geometric constraint (an axis-aligned block between two corners), but it is a noun phrase rather than an explicit action. It does not state that it creates a new body or can add to/cut targets, leaving the tool's full purpose only partially clear.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as create_cylinder, create_sphere, or boolean. The description also does not mention the operation modes (new/add/cut) that determine the tool's effect.

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