create_torusCreates a non-parametric torus primitive in Fusion 360 for CAD modeling by specifying major and minor radii.
Create a torus primitive (non-parametric via TemporaryBRepManager)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| axis | No | z | |
| center_x | No | ||
| center_y | No | ||
| center_z | No | ||
| major_radius | Yes | Distance from center to tube center | |
| minor_radius | Yes | Tube cross-section radius |
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 (readOnlyHint: false), non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds that it creates a 'primitive' and uses 'TemporaryBRepManager', which suggests it might be a temporary or intermediate geometric representation, but doesn't clarify persistence, side effects, or error conditions. No contradiction with annotations exists.
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 ('Create a torus primitive') and adds technical context without redundancy. Every word serves a purpose, making it appropriately 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?
Given the complexity of a 3D modeling tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering basic safety, the description is minimal. It states what the tool does but lacks details on return values, error handling, or integration with sibling tools, leaving gaps for an AI agent to infer usage.
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 low (33%), with only 'major_radius' and 'minor_radius' described. The description adds no parameter details beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining 'axis' enum choices or default center values. With 6 parameters and poor schema coverage, the description fails to compensate adequately, resulting in a baseline score.
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 torus primitive') and specifies the method ('non-parametric via TemporaryBRepManager'), which distinguishes it from potential parametric creation methods. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_box' or 'create_sphere' beyond the geometric shape.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_sphere' or 'create_cylinder', nor does it mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. It lacks any usage context or comparison to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.