Create Revision Cloud

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint: false), the description discloses an important behavioral guardrail: a segment_length longer than the shortest edge is refused because it would produce a plain polyline misrepresented as a cloud. This tells the agent about a failure mode that is not visible in the schema or 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?

The description is two sentences and every part earns its place: the first states the core purpose and geometry, the second explains the key edge-case restriction. It is front-loaded and free of fluff or redundant restating of the title.

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 100% schema description coverage, an output schema, and a non-destructive annotation, the description covers the non-obvious failure mode and the entity's defining behavior. An agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly without needing extra documentation.

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 four parameters with clear descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantic value by explaining the relationship between segment_length and edge length, a constraint not present in the schema. This helps the agent reason about valid inputs.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource—'Draw a revision cloud'—and immediately defines the entity as 'a polyline whose every segment carries an arc,' which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like entity_create_polyline or entity_create_line. This gives an agent a precise, non-tautological understanding of what the tool does.

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 gives clear context by specifying exactly when this tool is relevant: when a revision-cloud polyline is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'use entity_create_polyline instead for plain polylines,' so it stops short of the highest score, but the context is unambiguous.

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