editor_create_csg_cylinder

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the creation action. It does not describe side effects, prerequisites like whether an open scene is mandatory, potential error conditions, or whether the operation is reversible. This lack of behavioral context is a significant gap for a mutation 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 description is a single straightforward sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the action and target.

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 simple creation tool with fully documented parameters, the description is minimally adequate, but it omits any mention of return values, error handling, or prerequisites beyond the open scene. No annotations or output schema exist to compensate, so the description is not fully complete.

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 covers all three parameters with descriptions (name auto-generated, parent default '.', properties to set), so baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter information beyond the schema.

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 uses the specific verb 'Create' and identifies the exact node type 'CSGCylinder3D' and target 'in the open scene', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like editor_create_csg_box or editor_create_csg_sphere.

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 gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as create_mesh_primitive or other CSG creation tools. It only states the action without any contextual or alternative scenario.

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