Create Spline

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description needn't restate that this mutates the drawing. The description conveys the fit-point-to-spline behavior but does not disclose details like whether the spline is degree-3, whether endpoints are included automatically, or how the result is returned. With an output schema present, some of that burden is reduced.

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?

One sentence that names the entity, the construction method, and the input data. No filler, no repetition of schema details, and the core behavior is front-loaded.

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 creation tool with an output schema, full schema documentation, and straightforward inputs, the description is nearly sufficient. It could add a note about the minimum number of fit points or default layer/color behavior, but the current level is adequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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 fit_points, layer, and color. The description adds the key semantic detail that the spline passes through those fit points, which is valuable. However, it does not clarify coordinate space, units, or constraints on the points (e.g., at least two points). Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 verb ('Create'), a resource ('NURBS spline curve'), and the defining behavior ('passing through the specified fit points'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling creation tools like entity_create_line or entity_create_ellipse.

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 clearly implies the tool is for creating splines with fit points, which is enough context for an agent choosing among entity creation tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., polyline, arc, or ellipse) or mention any constraints (e.g., minimum number of fit points).

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