Create Wipeout

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

Goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation by disclosing the hiding behavior and the refusal condition for invalid point counts, explaining why fewer than three points is rejected. This prevents an agent from passing degenerate geometry that would silently produce a useless mask.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the first states the purpose, the second handles an important edge case. No redundancy, filler, or repetition of schema information.

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?

Contains the essential behavioral context and edge-case handling for a tool with only two well-documented parameters. It does not explicitly state the return value (and no output schema is present), but the core call semantics are complete and unambiguous.

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 input schema already documents both parameters well ('layer' default and 'points' format). The description adds the context that points form the outline and reinforces the 3-point minimum, but provides no new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema states.

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 ('Create'), resource ('WIPEOUT'), and its defining behavior ('hides drawing content behind its outline'), distinguishing it clearly from sibling entity creation tools like entity_create_hatch or entity_create_polyline.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, such as when a wipeout is preferable to a hatch or other masking approach. The 'Refuses fewer than three points' note is a boundary condition, not selection guidance.

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