rupa_cad_bentuk

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context by claiming volumes are exact and backed by analytic surfaces, but it does not disclose potential side effects like overwriting an existing named shape. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then a sharp contrast with rupa_skrip. The example proving exact volume earns its place by making the claim concrete. No filler or redundant restatement.

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 tool is complex: 12 parameters, 6 shape types, and no output schema. The description gives the key conceptual distinction but omits guidance on per-type required dimension parameters and what happens on naming conflicts or overwrites. The schema fills many gaps, but the description alone would not fully support correct invocation for all shape types.

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 75%, so most parameters are documented structurally. The description adds a concrete example tying jari and tinggi to exact volume (r=7.5, t=12), but it does not clarify the undocumented parameters (jenis, pusat, tinggi) or type-specific required combinations. This is adequate but not compensating beyond baseline.

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?

Description opens with an explicit verb+resource: 'Buat primitif b-rep bernama.' It clearly differentiates itself from the sibling rupa_skrip by contrasting analytic B-rep surfaces with triangle-based approximations. The purpose is unambiguous and distinguishes the tool from nearby CAD 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?

The description names rupa_skrip as the main alternative and states the fundamental difference: this tool stores exact analytic surfaces rather than meshes. This gives clear selection context for when exact geometry is needed, though it does not give explicit when-not-to-use conditions or mention other alternatives.

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