add_landscape_spline_segment

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

Annotations already declare mutation semantics (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the description only needs to add context on top. It does: prerequisite state required for success, the verification path, and the returned fields including added: bool which signals success/failure. Together this is richer than the annotations alone.

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 action verb leads, prerequisites follow, and verification is last. Each sentence carries information, though the conceptual aside ('the second half of laying a road...') is a slight tax that a terse agent-facing definition could trim.

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 non-idempotent mutation with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, the chaining workflow, verification, and the return shape. Nothing critical for correct invocation is missing, though edge cases (invalid index behavior, duplicate segments) are unaddressed.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents landscape_name (defaults to first found) and the two point indices. The description reinforces that both indices must pre-exist and that they form a point-to-point chain, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (join) and resource (two landscape spline control points with a segment) and even clarifies the domain concept: points alone render nothing, the segments are the spline. An agent can distinguish this from add_landscape_spline_control_point and add_spline_component without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite (both indices must already exist, provided by add_landscape_spline_control_point) and a workflow pattern (chain segments point-to-point for a route). It also names the verification tool get_landscape_splines. No explicit 'when not to use' is given, so it stops short of a 5.

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