create_cylinder

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=false, but the description explicitly advertises a cut mode that creates a round hole, i.e. subtracts material from an existing body. That is a destructive update, so the description conflicts with the annotation; other behavior such as target requirements and operation modes is left to the schema.

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?

It is a single sentence fragment, so it is concise but poorly structured for a 7-parameter tool. It front-loads the noun 'Cylinder' but omits the action, making it under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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 CAD mutation with conditional operation modes, the description is far too sparse. Output schema handles return values, but the description does not explain operation selection, target requirements, or body naming, leaving the agent to infer from the schema.

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 only 57%, and the description adds just one intuitive note that cut makes a hole of the given depth. It does not clarify name, radius, height, axis, or the conditional need for targets when operation is add or cut.

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 names the resource ('Cylinder') and mentions the cut variant, but it is a noun phrase with no verb and largely restates the tool name. It does not distinguish create_cylinder from shape siblings like create_box/create_sphere beyond the shape itself.

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 create_box, create_sphere, or boolean for holes. The only usage hint is operation='cut', which describes a mode rather than an alternative-selection rule.

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