Create a parallel copy of a supported 2D entity at a set distance. Choose left/right for open curves or inside/outside/inward/outward for closed curves.
Create an offset copy of a supported 2D entity. Use left/right for open curves and inside/outside or inward/outward for closed curves.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| side | Yes | ||
| unit | No | ||
| distance | Yes | ||
| entity_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations at all, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says a copy is created but does not disclose whether the source is modified, what layer/type the new entity inherits, whether the operation is undoable, or what the result looks like. For a mutation-style geometry tool with zero annotation coverage 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, no filler, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the side-value qualifier. Efficient for the information it contains.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description should describe return behavior, constraints (e.g., that distance must be positive), and unit defaults. It covers only which side tokens apply to which curve shape, leaving the behavioral and parameter surface largely undocumented.
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 must compensate. It explains the semantics of `side` values by curve type, which is genuine added value beyond the bare enum. But `distance` (must be >0) and `unit` (default behavior when omitted) receive no explanation at all.
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 and resource ('Create an offset copy of a supported 2D entity'), which clearly distinguishes it from geometric creation siblings like mirror_2d or the create_* primitives. The 'supported 2D entity' hedge adds slight ambiguity about what is actually supported.
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 second sentence gives conditional guidance mapping side values to curve types (open vs closed). However, it does not name or rule out related alternatives such as mirror_2d, array_rectangular, or create_polyline, so there is no explicit when-not or sibling routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.