Create a polygon for a study boundary or management zone with domain metadata, defining an area from three or more coordinate points.
Create a study boundary or management zone polygon with domain metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| unit | No | ||
| layer | No | ||
| points | Yes | ||
| attributes | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden, yet it only says 'with domain metadata' without explaining what that metadata is, whether the polygon is closed automatically, what entity/ID is returned, or how units are applied. It is little more than a restated purpose.
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 short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It earns its place structurally but is terse to the point of under-specification rather than efficiently complete.
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 5-parameter creation tool with nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description omits coordinate/unit handling, closure, return value, and metadata semantics, leaving the agent under-informed before calling it.
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 5 parameters, and the description only vaguely gestures at 'domain metadata' (loosely the attributes param). It says nothing about points ordering/min-3 closure, the unit enum, or the layer field, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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?
States a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('polygon') and qualifies it with the domain intent ('study boundary or management zone'), which meaningfully separates it from the generic sibling create_polygon.
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 on when to use this instead of create_polygon, create_polyline, or create_rectangle, and no prerequisites or context. The domain phrasing hints at a mapping/GIS use case but never states it as a rule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.