geometry_create_side_selections

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses a useful behavior beyond the schema: the four generated tags and their <prefix>_... naming convention. It does not say whether existing selections are overwritten, what permissions or model state are required, or that this mutates geometry state.

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?

Two short paragraphs, front-loaded with the action and followed by the domain and tag naming. No filler sentences. Slightly under-specified rather than bloated, but structurally sound.

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 10-parameter geometry-mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero param documentation, the description covers only the output tag naming. Semantics of tolerance, entity_dimension, and model/geometry/component scoping are absent, so the agent cannot call it confidently.

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% and all 10 parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description only illuminates the 'prefix' parameter (through the tag naming) and indirectly the bounding-box coordinates; tolerance, entity_dimension, model_name, geometry_name, and component_name get no explanation anywhere.

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 and resource ('Create named left, right, bottom, and top Box selections') and even enumerates the resulting tag names, which is unusually concrete. However, it never differentiates itself from the near-identical sibling geometry_create_box_selection, so the agent can't tell the two apart from the text alone.

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 names the intended domain ('rectangular 2D domains such as waveguides and water-wave tanks'), which is real usage context. But there is no when-not guidance and no mention of the alternative box-selection tool, leaving the agent to infer which sibling to pick.

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