Create Arc

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false, so the description adds meaningful behavioral context by defining the angular convention: degrees, counter-clockwise, and relative to the positive X axis. This clarifies how start_angle and end_angle are interpreted. No contradiction with annotations.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Every sentence carries useful information; the purpose leads, and the geometry convention follows.

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 the output schema exists and parameter descriptions cover all fields, the description is nearly complete. The main minor gap is not explicitly stating the sweep direction or start/end ordering, though the counter-clockwise angle convention strongly implies 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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds value by stating a single consistent convention for angles across both start and end parameters, which is not fully explicit in the end_angle schema entry.

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 a circular arc.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling creation tools like entity_create_line and entity_create_circle, and there is no tautology or ambiguity.

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 description implies this tool is for circular arcs rather than full circles or other entity types, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over entity_create_circle or provide exclusions/alternatives.

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