Rocky Create Surface

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about state mutation, persistence, required preconditions, error behavior, or what happens if radius/width/length are omitted. Only the bare mutation ('create') is conveyed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized, though it is arguably over-compressed given the tool's conditional parameters.

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?

Return values need not be explained since an output schema exists, and the schema fully documents the seven parameters including shape-conditional requirements. However, for a mutation tool with zero annotations, the description should still state preconditions and side effects, which it omits.

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%, including the shape-conditional requirements for radius vs. width/length, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema (no units interaction, no defaults discussion, no center semantics).

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Create a ... Rocky surface') and names the two supported shapes, which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like rocky_create_inlet or rocky_create_particle by the object being created. It does not explicitly contrast with those siblings, keeping it below a 5.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., whether a project/study must already be open), and no exclusions or alternatives mentioned. The agent must infer context entirely from the name and sibling list.

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