nbc_entity

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

With annotations containing only a title and no read-only or destructive hints, the description carries the full burden. It lists destructive and mutating operations like erase, copy, move, scale, and fillet, but does not disclose side effects, persistence behavior, reversibility, or any consequences of operations. The implicit mutation is not enough for confident use.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the generic scope and packs the supported operations into a clear list. There is no filler or redundancy, though the long slash-separated list is dense and harder to scan.

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?

This is a high-complexity tool with over fifteen operations and three parameters, but the description only provides a list of operation names. The data parameter and per-operation requirements are entirely undocumented, and the output schema does not compensate for missing usage semantics. A minimal viable description would at least explain the data structure or point to per-operation details.

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 0% and parameters have no descriptions, so the description must compensate. It does add value by listing possible operation values, which helps an agent guess the required operation string. However, it says nothing about the data parameter, which is likely operation-specific, or about include_screenshot semantics.

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 enumerates a broad but specific set of operations and entity types, such as create_line, circle, polyline, erase, copy, move, and rotate. Although it does not define 'entity' or explain what distinguishes it from sibling tools, the operation list makes the tool's scope reasonably clear.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus specialized siblings like nbc_wall, nbc_dimension, or nbc_block. The word 'generic' implies it is the catch-all for low-level entity operations, but there are no conditions, exclusions, or alternative recommendations.

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