Create Hatch

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that a closed boundary polygon is required, but it does not explain what happens if the boundary is not closed, whether the boundary is consumed or preserved, or what side effects occur beyond creating the hatch.

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 a single, direct sentence with no redundant phrasing. It front-loads the core action and resource, and every word contributes meaning. There is no unnecessary detail or filler.

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 schema fully documents parameters and an output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not needed. However, the description does not help an agent navigate the many related hatch and entity-creation tools, nor does it clarify behavioral requirements like boundary validation. It is minimally viable but leaves selection and edge-case reasoning to the agent.

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 all six parameters are already documented with meaningful descriptions. The function description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable but not additive. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles parameter semantics completely.

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 action ('Create') and resource ('hatch fill pattern') with a meaningful scope qualifier ('inside a closed boundary polygon'). It clearly signals creation rather than editing or modifying, which distinguishes it from tools like hatch_edit or hatch_set_gradient, though it does not explicitly name any sibling alternative.

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 on when this tool should be used instead of related hatch tools such as hatch_add_boundary, hatch_set_gradient, or hatch_edit. The phrase 'inside a closed boundary polygon' implies a prerequisite, but the description does not say when to prefer this tool over alternatives.

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