civil3d_point

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It lists actions but does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects (e.g., deletion is irreversible), authentication needs, or rate limits. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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: the first defines the purpose, the second enumerates actions. No extraneous words, front-loaded with the core action list. Very efficient.

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 the tool has 11 parameters and 6 actions, the description is brief but covers the main actions. However, it lacks details on return values or behavior for different actions. An output schema could complement, but none exists, so more detail would be beneficial.

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%, providing baseline 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it mentions optional group filtering for list, point number for get/delete, batch creation, and import from file. This enhances understanding of parameter usage.

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 clearly states it manages COGO points and lists all available actions (list, get, create, delete, list_groups, import). It distinguishes from sibling tools that handle other civil3d elements like alignments, corridors, etc.

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 tool description implies usage for point management but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when-not to use it.

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