create_sphere

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is carried by structured data rather than the description. The description adds nothing beyond that — it never says a solid body is created, whether the operation is reversible, or what permissions/session state are required. No contradiction, but zero added value.

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 text is a single word, which is short but not concise in the useful sense — it is under-specified rather than front-loaded with information. Nothing is wasted, but nothing is communicated either.

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?

Even accounting for the existing output schema and annotations, a 5-parameter creation tool with an operation enum (new/add/cut) and a targets parameter needs more than one word. The description does not explain how the operation modes interact with targets or what gets created, leaving a significant gap.

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 40%: name, center, and radius are required but completely undocumented, and the description does not compensate at all. The meaning of center, radius, or the name collision behavior is left entirely to the agent's inference.

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 'Sphere.' restates the resource named in the tool name and supplies no verb, scope, or outcome. An agent cannot tell from this text what create_sphere actually produces or how it differs from siblings like create_box or create_cylinder.

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, when to prefer boolean or create_cylinder instead, or what preconditions (e.g., an active design, a connected SpaceClaim session) must hold. The one-word description leaves routing entirely to the tool name.

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