Create a sphere in CST Studio Suite, optionally truncated by top and bottom radii, by defining its component, name, center, and radius.
Create a sphere (optionally truncated by top/bottom radius).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| title | No | ||
| center | Yes | ||
| radius | Yes | ||
| material | No | ||
| segments | No | ||
| component | Yes | ||
| top_radius | No | ||
| bottom_radius | No |
| 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 supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the sphere can be truncated via top/bottom radius, but says nothing about permissions, side effects on the active project/component, reversibility, or required context; for a mutating CAD primitive tool this is a major gap.
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. It is structurally efficient, though its brevity is only a virtue in this dimension and does not offset missing detail elsewhere.
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?
With 9 parameters at 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and a mutating creation operation, the definition is not complete enough for reliable invocation. The output schema covers return values, but the description still omits most parameter semantics and behavioral context.
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 9 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only explains the truncation effect of top_radius/bottom_radius and implicitly radius; center, component, name, title, material, and segments receive no meaning from the description.
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 and resource ('Create a sphere'), and the parenthetical about top/bottom radius distinguishes it from an untruncated sphere primitive. Sibling tools like cst_create_cone_tool and cst_create_cylinder_tool are not named, so it does not explicitly route between primitives, but the purpose is still clear.
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 guidance is given on when to use this versus cst_create_cone_tool, cst_create_cylinder_tool, or other solid-creation tools; no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. Usage is only implied by the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.