create_curve

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the action and parameters, but it does not mention side effects like adding a new object to the current scene, name collision behavior, or whether the created curve is returned or selected. This is adequate but not rich behavioral context.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a structured parameter list. It contains no filler prose, though a few entries like 'name: Curve name' are near-tautological. Overall, it is appropriately sized 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?

The description covers all parameter semantics but omits contextual details such as coordinate system/units, behavior when optional params are omitted, and whether the operation returns anything. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, this leaves some operational uncertainty, though the core invocation is still understandable.

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 fully compensates by explaining all seven parameters. It adds meaningful detail: curve_type allowed values, point/location tuple formats, bevel meaning, and fill allowed values. This is essential documentation that the schema itself fails to provide.

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 curve object.' This clearly distinguishes it from generic tools like create_object and from curve-modification siblings like edit_curve_points or set_curve_fill. The detailed parameter list further confirms the tool's role.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_object, edit_curve_points, or convert_curve_to_mesh. The agent must infer from the name and parameter list that this is for initial curve creation, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is provided.

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