create_box

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses that missing tags/materials are auto-created (a side effect), and the subtle rule that color only applies when the material is newly created while an existing material keeps its color.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then dimensions, origin, material/tag behavior, and return shape. Dense but every clause carries information; only the parenthetical color caveat is slightly heavy, and the whole thing stays readable.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: units, axis semantics, origin convention, side effects, color semantics, and even the return object shape. Combined with annotations that carry the safety profile, nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.

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 only 50%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it defines the axis mapping (width=X, depth=Y, height=Z, mm), clarifies origin is the lower-left corner, and supplies the color format ('#RRGGBB' or color name) plus its conditional application. The undocumented tag/material parameters are partly addressed by the auto-creation note, though their exact expected values remain implicit.

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 (Create) and resource (rectangular box/group) with axis orientation for each dimension, which cleanly separates it from siblings like create_shape, create_lines, and insert_component. An agent can identify exactly what this tool produces without opening the schema.

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 (creating a box primitive) but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing against create_shape or insert_component. The agent must infer the choice from the resource name alone.

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