create_box

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

Annotations already signal mutation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), and the description's 'create' wording is consistent with that. The description adds useful production behavior context about segment counts affecting poly count and reset_transform being needed before normal baking, going beyond the structured hints.

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 short, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no filler. The bilingual duplication makes it slightly longer than strictly necessary, but it remains compact and readable.

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 tool backed by a 23-parameter shared schema and no output schema, the description leaves some ambiguity: it highlights dimensions and segments but does not explicitly say which unrelated params (chamfer, radius, sides, etc.) should be ignored, nor what a successful call returns. The practical workflow tips help, but not enough for full confidence.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the 12-16 segment guidance already present in the schema and adds no new meaning for name, position, or the many schema parameters that do not apply to a Box.

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 states a specific action and resource ('Create a box') and identifies the core parameters (length/width/height and segment counts), so an agent can tell it is a box-creation tool. It does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like create_chamferbox or create_primitive, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

It gives concrete when/how guidance: keep 12-16 segments for game assets and call reset_transform before baking normals to clear non-uniform scale. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, but the provided context is clear and actionable.

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