create_primitive

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

Annotations already establish that the tool is mutating and destructive. The description adds a useful prerequisite (class availability probing) and a performance warning about segment counts, but it does not describe what happens on failure, what gets selected, or what the return value is.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the core action, names the prerequisite probe, and closes with a bolded performance rule. The bilingual version is intentional and each 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 large parameter surface and the absence of an output schema, the description does not tell the agent what the tool returns or how it behaves on invalid/unavailable class names. The does_class_exist routing and segment warning are helpful, but a generic creator would benefit from at least a brief success/error expectation.

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 24 parameters, including which primitive types each parameter applies to. The description adds only the general segment/polygon guidance, which is helpful but not necessary for understanding any specific parameter.

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 concrete operation: create a 3ds Max primitive from a class name, and gives a representative list of classes (Box, Sphere, Cylinder, Cone, ChamferBox, Capsule). The 'by class name' phrasing clearly distinguishes this generic creator from the many specialized create_box/create_sphere siblings.

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?

It explicitly instructs the agent to probe unfamiliar classes with does_class_exist before creating, which is concrete usage guidance. It also provides a segment-count target for game assets, though it does not explicitly discuss when to prefer a specialized create_* sibling instead.

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