create_pyramid

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the description bears little burden for the safety profile. However, destructiveHint=true is surprising for a create operation, and the description does nothing to clarify this — it doesn't say whether creating overwrites an existing object, alters the scene, or has side effects. The description adds only 'create', which is already implied by the tool name and annotations, so it contributes no genuine behavioral context beyond the structured data.

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 (purpose first, then sizing, then use case), but the entire content is duplicated in Chinese and English, making roughly half the sentences redundant for an AI agent. It's not verbose, yet the bilingual duplication inflates token count without adding information, and the brevity comes at the cost of omitting important parameter guidance.

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 23 optional parameters, no output schema, and a noisy parameter list largely copied from unrelated primitives, the description is far too thin. It does not tell the agent which parameters matter for a pyramid, what the defaults are, what the destructiveHint=true means in practice, or how the object is created in the scene. An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool correctly based on the description alone.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description actively adds misleading semantics: it says 'Use width/height/depth for size' while the schema has no 'depth' parameter at all. It also fails to help the agent navigate a schema full of parameters clearly belonging to other primitives (to, from, axis, turns, fillet, chamfer, radius1, radius2, capSegs, cornerRadius). The one piece of sizing guidance is partly wrong, and the description does not point out which of the 23 parameters actually affect a pyramid.

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 and resource: 'Create a pyramid (square base)', and the 'square base' detail distinguishes it from other primitive creators like create_cone or create_hedra. The bilingual text is consistent and the purpose is immediately understandable. Minor deduction because mentioning 'depth' as a sizing control introduces ambiguity about the tool's actual parameters, slightly muddying what the tool really creates.

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 'handy as a low-poly obstacle', which is a vague use-case hint. There is no when-to-use vs alternatives guidance (e.g., why choose a pyramid over create_cone or create_hedra), no exclusions, and no prerequisites. An agent cannot tell from the description when this tool is the right choice among the many sibling primitive creators.

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