create_rectangle

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds no further behavioral detail, such as whether an existing object is overwritten, how naming works, or what side effects occur in the scene. There is no contradiction, but the description carries little behavioral burden beyond 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 compact, front-loaded with the action and object, and every sentence contributes either the core behavior or a useful usage context. The bilingual repetition is consistent and not excessive.

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 schema parameters and no output schema, the description is somewhat thin. It covers the main dimensions and a common use case, but it does not specify which parameters are actually applicable to a rectangle, nor what the tool returns on success. This leaves room for an agent to misinterpret irrelevant parameters.

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. The description adds value by identifying length/width as the size controls and cornerRadius as the rounding control, which is not obvious from the generic schema descriptions alone. It also provides domain context ('wall/floor profile') that helps an agent reason about appropriate values. It does not clarify that many other schema parameters (e.g., text, sides, turns) are irrelevant for a rectangle, but it does highlight the operative ones.

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 rectangle spline', and explicitly names the key controlling parameters (length/width, cornerRadius). This clearly distinguishes it from related sibling tools like create_box or create_sphere, which would produce different geometry types.

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 gives a practical use case ('common as wall/floor profile'), which hints at when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternatives such as create_line, create_ngon, or create_primitive, nor does it state when NOT to use this tool.

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