Create Parametric Box

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it creates a history-based feature using sketch + extrude, accepts expressions referencing User Parameters, and clarifies unit handling. The annotations only indicate non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive, so this additional context is valuable and not contradictory.

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 two focused sentences with no filler. The key distinction from create_box is front-loaded, followed by parameter format details and a prerequisite call. 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?

The description covers the construction method, accepted value formats, units, expression examples, and the prerequisite create_parameter call. It does not describe the return value or error behavior, but there is no output schema and the schema covers most parameter details. Overall, it provides enough context for correct invocation.

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 already documents each dimension parameter as 'number (cm) or expression', but the description adds important examples and clarifies that expressions can reference named User Parameters with syntax like 'outer - 2 * wall_t'. This goes beyond the schema and helps the agent construct valid inputs.

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 states a specific operation: create a history-based rectangular box via sketch rectangle + extrude. It also explicitly distinguishes this tool from create_box by noting the different construction method (TemporaryBRepManager vs. history-based). An agent can clearly identify what this tool does and how it differs from a sibling.

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?

The description names create_box as the alternative and explains the fundamental difference. It also provides a sequencing instruction: call create_parameter first to define named parameters. It could be more explicit about when not to use this tool, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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