create_hedra

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description's 'create' wording is consistent with those annotations, so there is no contradiction. But the description adds no behavioral context such as whether creation overwrites an existing object, what scene state is mutated, whether the tool requires a target object, or how the created object is returned. It relies entirely on the 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?

The description is short and front-loaded with the main action, which is structurally good. However, the English section directly duplicates the Chinese section, and the key substantive claim about family and vertex type is unsupported by the schema. Brevity is achieved, but the content is partly inaccurate, so not 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?

With 23 optional parameters and no output schema, an agent needs to know the default object behavior, which parameters apply to a given family, and what the call returns. The schema documents individual parameters well, but the description provides none of the connective context needed to choose among the parameters or predict the result of calling with no arguments. This is a major gap for a destructive creation tool.

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 baseline is 3, but the description actively misleads by promising 'selectable family' and 'vertex type' parameters that do not exist in the schema (additionalProperties is false and no such properties are present). It also provides no guidance over the 23 actual parameters, so it fails to add semantic value and instead introduces phantom knobs.

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 the action and target: 'Create a hedra (multifaceted solid) with selectable family; good for sci-fi crystals.' That is a specific verb plus resource, and it adds a stylistic use case. However, it does not define what a 'hedra' is beyond a generic multifaceted solid, and it does not distinguish this tool from sibling primitive creators such as create_geosphere, create_pyramid, or create_primitive.

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 only usage guidance is 'good for sci-fi crystals,' which is a stylistic suggestion, not an operational criterion. The description does not explain when to use create_hedra versus the many other create_* sibling tools, nor does it state when not to use it. There are no exclusions or alternative tool references.

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