geometry_create_box_selection

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses defaults for optional parameters and notes the return ('Created named selection and matched entity numbers when available'), which helps. It still omits whether the selection persists, permission/model-state prerequisites, or failure behavior for a mutation tool, keeping it at a modest 3.

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 purpose is front-loaded, followed by a well-organized Args list and a Returns note. Each line contributes, though listing parameters as a separate block is somewhat verbose for what the schema could have carried.

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 12-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers parameter meaning and the return value adequately. The gaps are tool-selection guidance and mutation/error semantics rather than missing parameter documentation.

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 0% - only bare titles exist - so the description must compensate, and it does: the Args block documents all 12 parameters, including coordinate-expression semantics, 'Box condition, usually "intersects" or "inside"', and defaults for geometry_name, component_name, and model_name. This adds substantial meaning beyond the 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a named Box selection for geometry entities by position.' This is clear and distinguishable from siblings like geometry_create_side_selections. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those alternatives, so it earns a 4 rather than 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?

It supplies conditional guidance for entity_dimension (use 1 for 2D boundaries, 2 for 3D boundary faces), which is genuinely useful usage context. However, it never says when to choose this tool over alternatives such as geometry_create_side_selections or geometry_boundary_selection, so guidance is only implied at the tool-selection level.

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