Create a cylinder in a CST model along the x, y, or z axis by defining its component, radius, and length ranges. Use it to add cylindrical geometry for 3D simulation.
Create a cylinder along x, y or z.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| axis | Yes | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| title | No | ||
| center | No | ||
| radius | Yes | ||
| ranges | Yes | ||
| material | No | ||
| segments | 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 behavioral burden. It implies a mutation ('Create') but does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, whether an active project/component is required, or what happens to existing geometry. This is a significant gap for a 9-parameter creation tool.
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 single sentence is concise and front-loaded with no filler. But for a tool with nine parameters and five required inputs, it is severely under-specified rather than appropriately sized. It avoids verbosity but does not deliver enough structure for the tool's complexity.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, with no annotations, 0% input-schema description coverage, and nine parameters, the description is too sparse for correct invocation. It omits meaning for component, name, radius, ranges, center, material, segments, and title, leaving key required inputs unexplained.
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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the axis parameter's allowed values ('x, y or z'), which is useful because the schema has no enum. However, eight other parameters—including required ones like component, name, radius, and ranges—receive no semantic explanation at all.
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 cylinder' and adds the axis constraint 'along x, y or z.' It is clear what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling cst_create_elliptical_cylinder_tool or other solid-creation tools, so it falls short of 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?
The description provides no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, prerequisite, or alternative-tool guidance. It only states the operation and axis values. An agent must infer usage context entirely from the tool name and siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.