create_cone

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

Annotations already declare the tool is non-read-only and destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful geometric behavior (top radius 0 yields a pointed cone), but it does not mention scene side effects, what the tool returns, or any destructive implications beyond the annotation.

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 very short, bilingual, and front-loads the core purpose and the most important parameter behavior. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or redundant restating of the schema.

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 description covers the essential creation semantics and the key radius behavior, while the schema documents all 23 parameters at 100% coverage. It does not explicitly state return values or warn that many schema params are irrelevant to cones, but the core calling context is clear.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explicitly mapping radius1/radius2 to top/bottom and revealing the non-obvious 'set top to 0 for a pointed cone' behavior, which is not obvious from the generic radius1/radius2 schema descriptions.

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') and the resource ('cone / frustum'), and immediately clarifies the geometric distinction: radius1 is top, radius2 is bottom, and top=0 makes a pointed cone. This is specific enough to differentiate it from the many sibling primitive-creation tools.

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?

Usage is implied: use this when a cone or frustum is needed. However, there is no explicit guidance about when NOT to use it or which sibling tools to prefer for other primitive shapes, even though the sibling list contains many create_* alternatives.

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