Create Point

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

The annotations block appears to duplicate the input schema and provides no standard hints like readOnlyHint or destructiveHint. The description only states that a point marker is created; it does not disclose coordinate system assumptions, current-layer behavior, units, or whether anything is returned.

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 concise sentence with the key action and positional arguments front-loaded. There is no filler or redundant content.

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 simple creation tool, the description plus schema is mostly adequate: required coordinates and optional styling parameters are covered. However, with no meaningful annotations and no output schema, return behavior, coordinate system, and current-drawing side effects are left unstated.

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?

The schema already documents all parameters, including defaults for color and layer. The description adds only that the point is created at (x, y), which is essentially restating the schema's parameter descriptions. No additional semantic value is provided.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('point marker entity') and includes the key positional arguments (x, y). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling entity creation tools like entity_create_line or entity_create_circle.

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 is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as point_from_snap or other entity_create_* tools. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context cues to help an agent choose correctly.

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