create_teapot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description's 'Create a teapot' is consistent with those (no contradiction). The description adds modest context beyond annotations: axis selects which part of the teapot is generated and that defaults are fine. It does not disclose scene-level effects such as object naming, placement, or whether creation can overwrite an existing object — but given annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

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 with the core purpose before the parameter hint. The bilingual format duplicates content in Chinese and English, which adds some redundancy, but both sentences earn their place and nothing is filler.

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 simple primitive-creation tool with zero required parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys that this is a test mesh and that defaults are usually fine. However, it does not warn that most of the 23 schema parameters are shared from other primitives and should be ignored for a teapot — a potential trap for an agent scanning the large schema.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds genuine value by mapping axis to body/lid/spout/handle, which the schema's 'Teapot axis 1-4' does not spell out. However, it does not clarify that many of the 23 parameters (turns, fillet, chamfer, capSegs) are irrelevant to a teapot, so the added semantics are minimal overall.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource — 'Create a teapot (classic test mesh)' — and adds that the axis parameter selects body/lid/spout/handle. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the many sibling create_* tools (create_box, create_sphere, create_primitive) beyond the name itself, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 use this tool versus alternatives like create_primitive or the other primitive-specific creators. The only usage hint is 'axis ... usually leave default,' which is a parameter-level tip, not tool-selection guidance. With 23 sibling creation tools, the absence of routing or exclusion guidance is a real gap.

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