create_torus

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

Annotations already convey that this is a mutating operation (readOnly=false, destructiveHint=true), so the core safety profile is covered. The description adds parameter clarification rather than behavioral detail, and does not mention return values or effects on the scene/selection, but it does not contradict 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 short, front-loaded with the primary action, and uses its second sentence to clarify the three most important parameters. The bilingual duplication is acceptable and there is no 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 tool with 23 mostly-optional parameters, the description only explains three of them and does not indicate that other parameters may be irrelevant to a torus. The schema covers parameter meanings and annotations cover mutation behavior, making this minimally adequate, but an agent would benefit from clearer guidance about which generic parameters to ignore.

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 adequate. The description adds genuine value by specifying that radius1 is the major ring radius and radius2 is the minor tube radius, which the generic schema descriptions do not make clear. It also clarifies that sides controls tube smoothness, going beyond the schema wording.

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 the action and resource: 'Create a torus' and explains the key radius parameters. It is specific enough to identify the tool's purpose, though it does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling primitives like create_donut or create_tube.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource name and description: an agent would use this when it needs a torus. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling alternative to choose for similar shapes.

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