add_plane

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the plane's nature (zero-depth cube, two-sided), the crossed option, and parenting capability. It does not contradict annotations (none present) and adds valuable behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds value (use cases, key parameter behavior). No 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?

Given 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, key parameter usage, and common workflows (e.g., parent to bone). It does not describe return values, but for a creation tool, the output is implied. Reasonably complete.

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 high (90%), so baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by explaining how crossed:true creates an X shape and suggesting pairing with VFX texture, which improves understanding beyond the schema.

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 'Create a flat 2-sided plane (billboard)' with specific use cases (pixel VFX, thin details). It distinguishes from siblings like add_cube and add_mesh by noting it is a zero-depth cube, providing a clear verb and resource.

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 context on when to use (VFX, thin details, volumetric look with crossed:true, parent to bone for animation). It implicitly guides usage but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool names.

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