Create a rectangular brick (box) as a history block in CST Studio Suite by defining component, name, and X/Y/Z ranges for 3D geometry.
Create a rectangular brick (box) as a history block.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| title | No | ||
| xrange | Yes | ||
| yrange | Yes | ||
| zrange | Yes | ||
| material | No | ||
| component | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full load. It states the mutating action and that the artifact lands in the history tree, but omits whether an open project is required, what happens on failure, whether the operation is undoable, and how the material/title defaults behave.
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 efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise given the tool's 7-parameter surface.
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 output schema covers return values, so that is not a gap. However, with no annotations, 0% parameter coverage, and no preconditions for a mutating geometry-creation tool, the definition leaves too much for the agent to infer before a safe call.
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% across 7 parameters and the description mentions none of them. 'Rectangular brick (box)' faintly implies xrange/yrange/zrange are the box extents, but there is no guidance on their expected format (e.g. [min, max]), units, or the meaning of name/title/material/component. Almost all parameter meaning is left to inference.
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?
Names a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('rectangular brick (box)'), and the shape reference implicitly distinguishes it from the many other create_* siblings (sphere, cylinder, cone, torus, bondwire). It could be sharper by noting it is a solid primitive added to a component, but an agent can route to it confidently.
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. project/component must exist, whether a component must be open), and no comparison to alternative ways of creating geometry such as extrude or boolean. The phrase 'as a history block' hints at placement in the history tree but does not state the condition for choosing it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.