Create a polygon path from vertex points, with closed or open stroke and unit selection for CAD drawings and previews.
Create a polygon path from vertices. closed selects closed vs open stroke in preview (stored on entity properties). Points use unit (default mm).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| unit | No | ||
| layer | No | ||
| closed | Yes | ||
| points | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It mentions that `closed` is stored on entity properties and used for preview stroke, which is useful context, but doesn't cover whether this requires an active document, layer existence, or other prerequisites. For a mutation tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence efficiently covers two parameter behaviors. No wasted words, though the backtick formatting for `closed` and `unit` is slightly informal for a tool definition.
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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It should at least mention prerequisites (active document, layer existence) and describe the `points` and `layer` parameters more fully. The current text leaves too many gaps for an agent to invoke correctly without trial and error.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains `closed` (selects closed vs open stroke) and `unit` (default mm), covering 2 of 4 parameters. However, `points` (the required vertex list) and `layer` receive no explanation in the description, leaving half the parameters undocumented in both schema and description.
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 path from vertices), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like create_polyline or create_rectangle. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the verb-resource pairing 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?
No guidance on when to use create_polygon vs alternatives like create_polyline, create_boundary_polygon, or create_rectangle. The description explains parameters but offers no context for tool selection among the many creation siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.