fusion_cylinder

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

Annotations indicate openWorldHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, consistent with creating a new object. The description adds value by revealing the auto-document creation behavior, which is not apparent from annotations alone.

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 communicates the purpose and key parameters without extraneous text.

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 6-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and key parameters. It could improve by clarifying the x,y parameters and the interaction between radius and diameter, but is largely adequate for an agent.

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 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by explaining height, radius, and diameter parameters and their relationship. However, it omits the x, y, and name parameters, leaving their roles unclear (though x,y default to 0, consistent with centered origin).

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 tool creates a cylinder with specified height and radius/diameter, centered at the XY origin. It distinguishes from other shape-creation tools like fusion_box and fusion_sphere.

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 mentions auto-creating a document if none is open, providing context on when the tool can be used without a document. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like fusion_box or fusion_revolve for alternative shape creation.

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