Create a torus in CST Studio Suite by specifying ring and tube radii, center, and axis for 3D modeling.
Create a torus (ring_radius = ring, tube_radius = tube).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| axis | No | z | |
| name | Yes | ||
| title | No | ||
| center | Yes | ||
| material | No | ||
| segments | No | ||
| component | Yes | ||
| ring_radius | Yes | ||
| tube_radius | 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 full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about side effects, prerequisites (open project/component), units/coordinate conventions, or persistence. Only the parameter mapping for the two radii is added, which is closer to parameter semantics than behavior.
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; the parenthetical is compact. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but the size itself is appropriate and well-ordered.
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, but for a 9-parameter geometry tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description leaves critical invocation context (required component/name/center, axis default, units) unaddressed. It is not complete enough for reliable calling.
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 with 5 required, and the description only restates two radii (ring_radius = ring, tube_radius = tube) in a way that adds essentially no meaning beyond the field titles. Nothing is said about center format, axis, material, segments, or component.
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 torus") and clarifies the semantic mapping for the two radius parameters. It is clearly distinguishable from shape siblings like cst_create_sphere_tool or cst_create_brick_tool by name and object. It lacks any sibling cross-reference, but the purpose is unambiguous.
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?
There is no indication of when to use this versus other creation tools, nor any prerequisites such as requiring an open project or an existing component. The required 'component' parameter implies context but the description never states it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.