create_sphere

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

The annotations already mark readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description's 'Create a sphere' agrees with the mutation. It adds the useful context that segments/sides control polygon count, but it does not disclose scene-level effects such as auto-naming, default placement, or undo behavior; no contradiction with 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?

Two brief bilingual sentences deliver the action first and then the key performance caveat. No filler or redundancy beyond the necessary language doubling.

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 and no output schema, a single creation sentence leaves too much unspecified: there is no indication that all parameters are optional, which subset matters for a sphere, or how this compares to geosphere creation. The schema descriptions compensate for parameter details but not for tool-scope ambiguity.

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, and the description adds a relationship between 'segments' and 'sides' for polygon count. However, with 23 optional parameters it doesn't clarify which parameters actually apply to spheres, and the 'sides' claim conflicts with the schema's own description of sides as a Cylinder/Cone/NGon/Torus 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 opens with the exact operation and object: 'Create a sphere', so the agent immediately knows the action and target. It earns 4 rather than 5 because it doesn't distinguish this from sibling create_geosphere or generic create_primitive, and 'sides' is mentioned as if sphere-specific despite the schema describing it for other primitives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose create_sphere over create_geosphere, create_primitive, or other create_* siblings. The only usage hint, 'keep low for game assets', concerns polygon budgets, not tool selection.

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