create_cylinderCreates a solid cylinder primitive from radius and height, with optional axis and base point, for use in Fusion 360 CAD modeling and automation workflows.
Create a cylinder primitive (non-parametric via TemporaryBRepManager)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| axis | No | Cylinder axis direction | z |
| base_x | No | ||
| base_y | No | ||
| base_z | No | ||
| height | Yes | ||
| radius | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate this is a mutable, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation, which the description does not contradict. The description adds value by specifying 'non-parametric via TemporaryBRepManager', hinting at creation behavior without persistence or parametric features, but it doesn't detail effects like scene changes or error conditions.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be more structured by separating purpose from technical notes.
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 creation tool with no output schema and low parameter documentation, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error handling, or how the cylinder integrates into the scene, making it inadequate for full contextual understanding.
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?
With low schema description coverage (17%), the description does not compensate by explaining parameters. It mentions 'non-parametric' but doesn't clarify what parameters like 'radius', 'height', or 'axis' mean in context, leaving semantics largely undocumented beyond the minimal schema details.
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 clearly states the action ('Create a cylinder primitive') and specifies the resource ('cylinder'), but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_box' or 'create_sphere'. The mention of 'non-parametric via TemporaryBRepManager' adds technical context but doesn't clarify functional uniqueness among siblings.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_box' or 'create_sphere', nor are there any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The description lacks context for tool selection among the many creation tools available.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.