create_helix

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond 'create': it doesn't explain auto-naming, overwrite-on-duplicate-name semantics, or what makes a creation operation flagged as destructive. No contradiction, but an unexplained destructiveHint on a create tool is a notable gap.

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?

Two short sentences per language, purpose front-loaded, parameters and use case following. The bilingual duplication is inherent overhead rather than waste, and every clause earns its place. Slightly longer than strictly necessary due to the English/Chinese mirror, but well-organized.

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 with 17 parameters, 0 required, no output schema, and a destructiveHint=true annotation, the description is thin: it covers only 4 parameters and a use case. It doesn't guard against misuse of the irrelevant generic-schema parameters (e.g., text, sides, width), doesn't describe default behavior when called with no arguments, and leaves return values and the destructive aspect entirely undisclosed.

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 adds modest value by identifying the four helix-relevant parameters (radius1/radius2, height, turns) within a 17-parameter schema that is clearly a generic multi-shape catch-all (including text, sides, width, cornerRadius). However, it doesn't clarify which of the other 13 parameters are applicable to a helix, and with 0 required parameters it establishes no minimal viable invocation.

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 verb+resource: 'Create a helix spline' / '创建一条螺旋线'. It also names the defining parameters (radius1/radius2, height, turns) and typical use cases (springs/stair paths), making it clearly distinguishable from sibling create_box, create_arc, create_line, and the other create_* 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?

The use-case hint '常用于弹簧/楼梯路径' (common for springs/stair paths) provides implied context for when a helix is the right shape. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use this tool, nor does it route the agent to an alternative among the many sibling creation tools — the name itself does most of the differentiation work.

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