create_component

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

No annotations provided, so the description fully covers behavioral traits: units (mm), minimum dimensions per type, position as MIN corner, per-type dimension conventions, return value details, and suggestion to verify with bbox_mm. Thorough disclosure.

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?

Multiple sentences but each adds essential detail without redundancy. Well-structured: purpose, units, size constraints, anchor point, per-type dimension mapping, Group wrapping, return value and verification advice. Efficient and front-loaded.

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?

Given 100% schema coverage and presence of output schema, the description provides all necessary context: explains param nuances (ignored axis for cylinder/cone), behavioral constraints, and return format. No gaps for a primitive creation tool.

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 100% (baseline 3), but description adds significant value: minimum sizes (0.1mm cube, 1.0mm sphere/cylinder/cone), clarifies that dimensions are interpreted differently per type (e.g., cylinder [0]=diameter, [2]=height), and reinforces that position is MIN corner.

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?

Clearly states it creates a primitive (cube/cylinder/cone/sphere) in SketchUp and that geometry is wrapped in a Group. Distinguishes from transform_component by noting shared anchor convention, and from sibling creation tools by specifying primitive types.

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?

Provides clear instructions on when to use (to create primitives) but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternative creation tools like create_dovetail or create_finger_joint. However, it references transform_component for positioning, offering some guidance.

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