create_cylinder

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the mutation profile is known. The description adds a mild behavioral insight about dropping caps to form an open pipe-like shape, but it does not disclose scene-level effects like object placement or selection changes. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate.

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 extremely short and front-loaded: it names the action, the two controllable aspects, and a practical use case. The bilingual repetition is intentional localization rather than filler, and every line earns its place.

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?

This tool has 23 parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, yet the description mentions only cap segments and sides. It does not tell the agent that radius and height are the core shape dimensions, nor that many parameters such as axis, turns, fillet, and cornerRadius are irrelevant to a plain cylinder. The description leaves too much to inference.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 23 parameters in detail. The description only highlights cap segments and sides, which adds no meaning beyond the schema. It also does not help the agent identify which of the many shape-specific parameters are actually relevant for a cylinder.

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 and resource: '创建一个圆柱' / 'Create a cylinder', and it adds that cap segments and sides are controllable. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from sibling creation tools like create_tube or create_cone, so it stops short of a full 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?

The description gives one use context: '去掉封顶可当管道用' / 'drop the caps to use it as a pipe'. This implies a scenario but does not explicitly compare against alternatives such as create_tube, nor does it state when not to use this tool. Usage guidance is present but not fully explicit.

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