create_donut

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the bar for additional disclosure is lower. The description adds that the tool creates a concentric-circle spline and defines radius roles, which is useful context. But it does not explain the reason behind destructiveHint=true (e.g., overwriting an existing object) or other side effects like whether the new object becomes selected.

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 with no filler, front-loading the tool's purpose and then defining the key radii. The bilingual formatting is compact and does not distract. Every sentence 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?

Given the tool has 17 parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and annotations that flag it as destructive, the description is too thin. It does not state which parameters should be set for a normal donut, what the tool returns, or how to handle invalid input like radius2 >= radius1. An agent is left without enough context to invoke the tool correctly beyond the basic geometry.

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% and the schema already documents radius1 as 'Outer radius' and radius2 as 'Inner radius', so the description's mention of these values adds no new semantic information. The description also does not clarify which of the 17 schema parameters are relevant to donut creation (e.g., radius1, radius2, position, segments) versus irrelevant parameters inherited from other primitives (e.g., sides, turns, text). Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 verb 'create', the resource 'donut spline', and defines the geometry as 'two concentric circles' with radius1 outer and radius2 inner. This is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like create_circle or create_torus.

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 implies usage: whenever a donut spline is needed. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like create_torus (3D torus) or create_circle, nor does it state when not to use this tool. The purpose is clear enough for basic routing, but the guidance is only implicit.

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