geometry_add_block

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions auto-generation of feature_name but does not describe side effects (e.g., whether it modifies existing geometry, error handling, or what 'Created block info' entails). Critical behavioral traits are missing.

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 concise: one sentence for purpose, then a list of parameters with one-line explanations, and a return note. It is front-loaded and each sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

The description adequately documents all parameters but lacks behavioral context such as what happens if geometry_name is null or invalid, error conditions, and the format of the return value. For a tool with 6 optional parameters and no output schema, more completeness is needed.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates excellently. Each parameter is explained with meaningful context: units for position and size, defaults, and optionality for geometry_name, feature_name, model_name. This adds value beyond the sparse schema.

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 tool adds a block (rectangular cuboid) to the geometry. The verb 'Add' and resource 'block' are specific, and the shape name distinguishes it from sibling geometry_add_circle, cylinder, etc. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, missing a chance to differentiate.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other geometry_add_* tools or when to avoid it. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or comparison, leaving the agent without decision support.

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